Molecular evidence for the systematic positions of two enigmatic mosses: <i>Pterogonidium pulchellum</i> (Sematophyllaceae, Musci) and <i>Piloecium pseudorufescens</i> (Myuriaceae, Musci)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The systematic position of Pterogonidium pulchellum (W.J. Hooker) Muell. Hal. in the Sematophyllaceae and Piloecium pseudorufescens (Hampe) Muell. Hal. in the Myuriaceae is reexamined with new evidence derived from rbcL gene sequences. A total of 18 taxa from Sematophyllaceae, Hypnaceae, Myuriaceae, and Hookeriaceae were included, 11 of which were newly sequenced for the rbcL gene. Analyses were done using maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood (TrN + Γ + I model and GTR + Γ + I model), and Bayesian inference (GTR + Γ + I model). The results show that Pterogonidium pulchellum has a closer relationship with members of Hypnaceae than with Sematophyllaceae, while Piloecium pseudorufescens forms a clade with the Sematophyllaceae in all phylogenetic analyses, with robust branch support. Two SOWH tests were carried out and the results show that it is not appropriate to classify Pterogonidium pulchellum in Sematophyllaceae and it is also not appropriate to classify Piloecium pseudorufescens in Myuriaceae.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".