Taxonomic variation among North and South American subspecies of <i>Fragaria virginiana</i> Miller and <i>Fragaria chiloensis</i> (L.) Miller
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A morphometric comparison was done in the greenhouse of 220 genotypes representing all the American taxa of octoploid strawberries. Only two groups of Fragaria virginiana Miller (Staudt) and Fragaria chiloensis (L.) Miller were well separated in both principle component and cluster analyses: a group composed primarily of F. chiloensis subspecies plus some F. virginiana ssp. glauca (Wats.) Staudt and F. virginiana ssp. platypetala (Rydberg) Staudt and another group composed primarily of F. virginiana ssp. virginiana Duchesne; and F. virginiana ssp. grayana (E. Vilmorin ex Gay) with some F. virginiana ssp. glauca and F. virginiana ssp. platypetala. Among the individual traits examined, only hair orientation reliably distinguished F. chiloensis ssp. lucida (E. Vilmorin ex Gay) from F. chiloensis ssp. pacifica Staudt, and F. virginiana ssp. grayana from F. virginiana ssp. virginiana. Little separation was observed between North and South American F. chiloensis in our principle component and cluster analyses, although these groups did show significant individual discontinuities for a number of traits. Individuals representing the cultivated race of F. chiloensis were in a relatively tight cluster within the scatter of native F. chiloensis. Taken together, these data indicate that F. virginiana and F. chiloensis may be extreme forms of the same biological species and that many of the subspecies designations currently employed in F. virginiana and F. chiloensis should not be recognized. We suggest, however, that there is sufficient morphological and geographical separation to warrant the species designations F. chiloensis and F. virginiana. Fragaria chiloensis ssp. pacifica and Fragaria chiloensis ssp. lucida do not appear to deserve distinct subspecies rank, nor do F. virginiana ssp. virginiana and F. virginiana ssp. grayana. North and South American F. chiloensis are morphologically quite similar, but probably deserve subspecies rank, based on their isolation from each other and the fact that they are evolving separately. Fragaria virginiana ssp. glauca and F. virginiana ssp. platypetala should probably be joined as a single subspecies and retained within F. virginiana until further investigations more definitively determine affinity to other F. virginiana and F. chiloensis subspecies.Key words: Rosaceae, interspecies hybridization, polyploidy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".