A five-marker molecular phylogeny of the Styphelieae (Epacridoideae, Ericaceae) supports a broad concept of Styphelia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Styphelieae is the largest of the seven tribes within the subfamily Epacridoideae Arn. (Ericaceae Juss.). Recent molecular phylogenetic work has resulted in the recircumscription of some genera and the erection of new ones, but several non-monophyletic genera remain. Most of them are concentrated in the well-supported Styphelia–Astroloma clade, which contains species currently assigned to Leucopogon R.Br., Styphelia Sm., Astroloma R.Br., Croninia J.M. Powell and Coleanthera Stschegl. Parsimony and Bayesian analyses of sequence data from four plastid markers (rbcL, matK, trnH–psbA, and atpB–rbcL), and the nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) for 207 taxa corroborate the polyphyly of the genera Astroloma, Leucopogon and Styphelia and resolve 12 well supported groups. Of these groups, two can be distinguished by unique morphological features and another six by different character combinations. The remaining groups are morphologically heterogeneous and inconsistent, and not readily distinguishable. A number of species remain ungrouped either because their phylogenetic relationships are not clear or because they do not show strong morphological affinities with the group to which they have a close phylogenetic relationship. Translating the results into a phylogenetic classification is a choice between accepting a single, large genus or at least 12 smaller genera. The first option would result in a heterogeneous assemblage conveying limited morphological information. The multi-generic option would be a better reflection of the morphological diversity of the clade, but would result in many genera lacking readily observable, diagnostic morphological characters. We prioritise the nomenclatural stability inherent in the former approach and advocate expanding Styphelia to include all taxa in the Styphelia–Astroloma clade.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".