Variation in floral morphology and ploidy among populations of<i>Collinsia parviflora</i>and<i>Collinsia grandiflora</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variation in floral form complicates species identification, and when variation in ploidy also occurs, taxonomic designations are significantly compromised. We studied morphological and ploidy variation in sister species Collinsia parviflora Lindl. (small-flowered form) and Collinsia grandiflora Douglas ex Lindl. (large-flowered form), sampling from California, where the species were previously described as diploids, to British Columbia, where morphologically variable populations were more recently designated tetraploid. We found continuous among-population variation in flower size and shape throughout our sampled range. Ploidy variation, estimated using a combination of chromosome counts and flow cytometry, was not associated with flower size. Diploid populations were rare, and both large-flowered and small-flowered diploids were identified. Tetraploid populations were common, geographically dispersed, and exhibited the full range of flower sizes. A few populations of small-flowered plants were putative hexaploids. When large- and small-flowered forms co-occurred, they were diploid and tetraploid, respectively, suggesting morphological differentiation from selection for reproductive isolation between co-occurring plants of different ploidy. Although diploid C. parviflora (small-flowered) and C. grandiflora (large-flowered) occur, the majority of our sample consisted of morphologically variable tetraploids, suggesting that the use of flower size to delineate species is inappropriate. Further research is needed to ensure a true description of species boundaries in this group.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".