Widespread Genealogical Nonmonophyly in Species of Pinus Subgenus Strobus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phylogenetic relationships among Pinus species from subgenus Strobus remain unresolved despite combined efforts based on nrITS and cpDNA. To provide greater resolution among these taxa, a 900-bp intron from a late embryogenesis abundant (LEA)-like gene (IFG8612)was sequenced from 39 pine species, with two or more alleles representing 33 species. Nineteen of 33 species exhibited allelic nonmonphyly in the strict consensus tree, and 10 deviated significantly from allelic monophyly based on topology incongruence tests. Intraspecific nucleotide diversity ranged from 0.0 to 0.0211, and analysis of variance shows that nucleotide diversity was strongly associated (P < 0.0001)with the degree of species monophyly. Although species nonmonophyly complicates phylogenetic interpretations, this nuclear locus offers greater topological support than previously observed for cpDNA or nrITS. Lacking evidence for hybridization, recombination, or imperfect taxonomy, we feel that incomplete lineage sorting remains the best explanation for the polymorphisms shared among species. Depending on the species, coalescent expectations indicate that reciprocal monophyly will be more likely than paraphyly in 1.71 to 24.0 x 10(6) years, and that complete genome-wide coalescence in these species may require up to 76.3 x 10(6) years. The absence of allelic coalescence is a severe constraint in the application of phylogenetic methods in Pinus, and taxa sharing similar life history traits with Pinus are likely to show species nonmonophyly using nuclear markers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".