Discordance between phylogenetics and coalescent‐based divergence modelling: exploring phylogeographic patterns of speciation in the <i>Carex macrocephala</i> species complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We fit a molecular data set, consisting of the rpL16 cpDNA marker and eight microsatellite loci, to the isolation-with-migration model as implemented in IMa to test a well-supported phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships within the Carex macrocephala species complex (Cyperaceae). The phylogenetic hypothesis suggests C. macrocephala from North America is reciprocally monophyletic and is sister to a reciprocally monophyletic clade of C. kobomugi. The North American C. macrocephala and C. kobomugi clade form a sister clade with a lineage of Asian C. macrocephala, thereby forming a paraphyletic C. macrocephala species. Not only does the phylogenetic hypothesis suggest C. macrocephala is paraphyletic, but it also suggests that the two lineages which share a partially overlapping distribution, Asian C. macrocephala and C. kobomugi, are not the most closely related. To test these relationships, we used coalescent-based population genetic models to infer divergence time for each lineage pair within the species complex. The coalescent-based models account for the stochastic forces which drive population divergence, and can account for the lineage sorting that occurs prior to lineage divergence. A drawback to phylogenetic-based phylogeographical analyses is that they do not account for stochastic lineage sorting that occurs between gene divergence and lineage divergence. By comparing the relative divergence time of the three main lineages within this group, Asian C. macrocephala, North American C. macrocephala, and C. kobomugi, we concluded that the phylogenetic hypothesis is incorrect, and the divergence between these lineages occurred during the Late Pleistocene epoch.
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".