Elusive Relationships Within Order Fabales: Phylogenetic Analyses Using <i>matK</i> and <i>rbcL</i> Sequence Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The order Fabales, including Leguminosae, Polygalaceae, Quillajaceae and Surianaceae, represents a novel hypothesis emerging from angiosperm molecular phylogenies. Despite good support for the order, molecular studies to date have suggested contradictory, poorly supported interfamilial relationships. Our reappraisal of relationships within Fabales addresses past taxon sampling deficiencies, and employs parsimony and Bayesian approaches using sequences from the plastid regions rbcL (166 spp.) and matK (78 spp.). Five alternative hypotheses for interfamilial relationships within Fabales were recovered. The Shimodaira-Hasegawa test found the likelihood of a resolved topology significantly higher than the one calculated for a polytomy, but did not favour any of the alternative hypotheses of relationship within Fabales. In the light of the morphological evidence available and the comparative behavior of rbcL and matK, the topology recovering Polygalaceae as sister to the rest of the order Fabales with Leguminosae more closely related to Quillajaceae + Surianaceae, is considered the most likely hypothesis of interfamilial relationships of the order. Dating of selected crown clades in the Fabales phylogeny using penalized likelihood suggests rapid radiation of the Leguminosae, Polygalaceae, and (Quillajaceae + Surianaceae) crown clades.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".