Phylogeny, systematics, and trait evolution of <i>Carex</i> section <i>Glareosae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: • PREMISE OF THE STUDY: The circumboreal Carex section Glareosae comprises 20-25 currently accepted species. High variability in geographic distribution, ecology, cytogenetics, and morphology has led to historical problems both in species delimitation and in circumscribing the limits of the section, which is one of the major tasks facing caricologists today.• METHODS: We performed phylogenetic reconstructions based on ETS, ITS, G3PDH, and matK DNA sequences from 204 samples. Concatenation of gene regions in a supermatrix approach to phylogenetic reconstruction was compared to coalescent-based species-tree estimation. Ancestral state reconstructions were performed for eight morphological characters to evaluate correspondence between phylogeny and traits used in traditional classification within the section.• KEY RESULTS: The results confirm the existence of a core Glareosae comprising 23-25 species. Most species constitute exclusive lineages, and relationships among species are highly resolved with both the supermatrix and coalescent-based species-tree approaches. We used ancestral state reconstruction to investigate sources of homoplasy underlying traditional taxonomy and species circumscription. We found that even species apparently not constituting exclusive lineages are morphologically homogeneous, raising the question of whether paraphyly of species is a phylogenetic artifact in our study or evidence of widespread homoplasy in characters used to define species.• CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the monophyly of Carex section Glareosae and establishes a phylogenetic framework for the section. Homoplasy makes many of morphological characters difficult to apply for taxon delimitation. The strong concordance between supermatrix and species-tree approaches to phylogenetic reconstructions suggests that even in the face of incongruence among molecular markers, section-level or species-level phylogenies in Carex are tractable.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".