Evidence for hybridization and introgression in two Canadian Arctic louseworts: <i>Pedicularis langsdorffii</i> subsp. <i>arctica</i> and <i>Pedicularis hirsuta</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hybridization and introgression between two closely related but taxonomically distinct Arctic lousewort species — the circumpolar Pedicularis hirsuta L. (predominantly eastern Arctic in Canada) and the amphi-Beringian, western Canadian Pedicularis langsdorffii Fisch. ex Steven subsp. arctica (R. Br.) Pennell ex Hultén — is documented here for the first time; only the second confirmed case of introgression in this widespread genus. Multivariate and univariate analysis of morphological characters successfully delineate the two species as morphologically similar but distinct taxa. Analysis of nrDNA ITS sequences likewise differentiate the two taxa in all sampled instances. Analysis of cpDNA atpI–atpH sequences also separate these taxa, except in 12 individuals of P. langsdorffii subsp. arctica, which possess the same haplotype as P. hirsuta. Where these two species overlap in range in the Canadian High Arctic, chloroplast transfer from P. hirsuta to P. langsdorffii subsp. arctica is detected, and morphologically intermediate hybids have been identified, indicating hybridization and subsequent backcrossing. Here we discuss the relationships between these two species, and provide a key that is useful for differentiating them.
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 | 0.001 | 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".