Typification of <i>Echinacea purpurea</i> (L.) Moench ( <i>Heliantheae: Asteraceae</i> ) and its implications for the correct naming of two <i>Echinacea</i> taxa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Binns, S. E., Baum, B. R., & Arnason, J. T.: Typification of Echinacea purpurea (L.) Moench ( Heliantheae: Asteraceae ) and its implications for the correct naming of two Echinacea taxa. – Taxon 50: 1169–1175. 2001. ‐ ISSN 0040–0262. A thorough investigation of relevant nomenclatural types and descriptions reveals that the name Echinacea purpurea (L.) Moench, which was lectotypified by McGregor in 1968, has been consistently misapplied since 1903 to a taxon distinctly different from that of its modern lectotype and of the original Linnaean concept. Linnaeus's original concept of Rudbeckia purpurea , maintained by Candolle as Echinacea purpurea when he segregated E. serótina (Nutt.) DC., is the species now known as E. laevigata (C. L. Boynton & Beadle) S. F. Blake. Technically, therefore, the correct name for the species currently called E. laevigata is E. purpurea (L.) Moench, and the correct name for the species currently called E. purpurea is E. serotina (Nutt.) DC., for which a lectotype is designated. Conservation of the name E. purpurea in the sense of its current application, which also preserves the usage of E. laevigata , is proposed in a separate article (see Binns & al., p. 1199, this issue).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".