The taxonomic and phylogenetic utility of vegetative anatomy and fruit epidermal silica bodies in <i>Carex </i>section <i>Phyllostachys </i>(Cyperaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Carex, vegetative anatomy and fruit epidermal silica bodies have been used to delimit species and sections, although frequent conflicts with traditional classifications have led many authors to question whether they can be used to infer evolutionary relationships. This conclusion, however, has largely been drawn from poorly circumscribed groups that have not been phylogenetically analyzed. This study was undertaken to assess the taxonomic and phylogenetic utility of these characters within Carex section Phyllostachys, a small (eight species), monophyletic group whose taxonomy and phylogeny has been extensively studied. Leaf and culm anatomy clearly separate the close species pair of Carex backii Boott and Carex saximontana Mackenzie, and they provide unique characters that distinguish Carex latebracteata Waterfall and Carex juniperorum Catling, Reznicek, & Crins. Anatomical and silica body characters strongly support the recognition of three species within the Carex willdenowii Willdenow complex (Carex willdenowii s.s., Carex basiantha Steudel, Carex superata Naczi, Reznicek, & B.A. Ford). Although unique characters were lacking in Carex jamesii Schw., infraspecific variation in its silica bodies was consistent with the high levels of genetic and morphological variation previously detected. Silica body characters support groups that are congruent with previous phylogenetic hypotheses derived from both morphological and molecular data. In contrast, vegetative anatomy, in this and previous studies, supports contradictory groups suggesting that its use in future phylogenetic studies below the sectional level in Carex may be limited.Key words: Carex, anatomy, silica bodies, cladistics, species circumscription.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".