Implications of ITS sequences and RAPD markers for the taxonomy and biogeography of the <i>Oxytropis campestris</i> and <i>O. arctica</i> (Fabaceae) complexes in Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taxonomic consensus is lacking on the Oxytropis arctica and O. campestris species complexes, two polyploid complexes found in the interior and arctic areas of Alaska. One classification has emphasized flower size, whereas flower color is considered a key diagnostic character in another classification. Our analyses of internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences and random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers provided no support for either classification system. The trees generated from ITS sequences and the phenogram derived from RAPD markers suggest that most recognized taxa in the two complexes are probably polyphyletic, including O. arctica var. barnebyana, which is listed as threatened in Alaska. The only consistent pattern detected by both types of molecular markers was a geographic split dividing the northeastern arctic populations from most other populations (48.60-55.03% in AMOVA analyses). This genetic subdivision probably reflects a Pleistocene barrier formed by the northern coastal ice shield. Our molecular data, in conjunction with the previously reported variation of ploidy levels in these groups, suggest a scenario of recent and multiple origins of polyploidy. It is possible that most Alaskan populations of these two complexes are best referred to as a single taxonomic species despite morphological differentiation within the complexes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".