Systematics of Capparaceae and Cleomaceae: an evaluation of the generic delimitations of <i>Capparis</i> and <i>Cleome</i> using plastid DNA sequence dataThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in the Special Issue on Systematics Research.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phylogenetic relationships in Capparaceae and Cleomaceae were examined using two plastid genes, ndhF and matK, to address outstanding systematic questions in the two families. Specifically, the monophyly of the two type genera, Capparis and Cleome , has recently been questioned. Capparaceae and Cleomaceae were broadly sampled to assess the generic circumscriptions of both genera, which house the majority of species for each family. Phylogenetic reconstructions using maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood methods strongly contradict monophyly for both type genera. Within Capparaceae, Capparis is diphyletic: the sampled species belong to two of the five major lineages recovered in the family, which corresponds with their geographic distribution. One lineage contains all sampled New World Capparis and four other genera ( Atamisquea , Belencita , Morisonia , and Steriphoma ) that are distributed exclusively in the New World. The other lineage contains Capparis species from the Old World and Australasia, as well as the Australian genus, Apophyllum . Species of Cleome are scattered across each of four major lineages identified within Cleomaceae: (i) Cleome in part, Dactylaena , Dipterygium , Gynandropsis , Podandrogyne , and Polanisia ; (ii) Cleome droserifolia (Forssk.) Del.; (iii) Cleome arabica L., and Cleome ornithopodioides L.; and (iv) Cleome in part, Cleomella , Isomeris , Oxystylis , and Wislizenia . Resolution within and among these major clades of Cleomaceae is limited, and there is no clear correspondence of clades with geographic distribution. Within each family, morphological support and taxonomic implications of the molecular-based clades are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".