MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Molecular phylogeny of the genus Philodendron (Araceae): delimitation and infrageneric classification

2008· article· en· W2112139238 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Pierre L. Gauthier, Denis Barabé, Anne Bruneau

Bibliographic record

VenueBotanical Journal of the Linnean Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAraceaeBiologyGenusBotanyMolecular phylogeneticsPhylogeneticsZoologyEvolutionary biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genus Philodendron (Araceae) is a large neotropical group whose classification remains unclear. Previous classifications are based on morphological characters, mainly from the inflorescence, flower and leaf shape. The classification by Krause, with few modifications, is still the most commonly used system. To examine phylogenetic relationships in the genus, two ribosomal DNA nuclear markers, internal transcribed spacer (ITS) and external transcribed spacer (ETS), and the chloroplast intron rpl16, were sequenced and analysed for more than 80 species of Philodendron and its close relative Homalomena. According to the resulting phylogeny, the genus Homalomena may be paraphyletic to the genus Philodendron. The inclusion of the American Homalomena species within the genus Philodendron might resolve this taxonomic problem. All three subgenera of Philodendron were revealed as monophyletic. Below the subgeneric level, the groups obtained in our phylogeny globally correspond to sections recognized in previous classifications. Among the morphological characters used by previous taxonomists to build their classifications, and which we optimized onto one of the most parsimonious trees, most characters were found to be homoplasious. However, leaf shape, characteristics of the sterile zone on the spadix and venation patterns are useful for delimiting subgenera and sections within the genus. © 2008 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2008, 156, 13‐27.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.161 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanical Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207