Phylogenetic analyses of combined morphological and molecular data sets on the Aphanocalyx-Bikinia_tetraberlinia group (Leguminosae, Caesalpinoideae, Detarieae s.l.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three molecular and one morphological data sets of a group of African tree genera (Leguminosae, Detarieae s.l.) are combined in simultaneous phylogenetic analyses.A few taxa with long branches show an unstable placement, while several other clades remain intact in all analyses.In the genus Aphanocalyx two separate copies of ITS appear to be present.We provide a coding method to circumvent the problems this gives for combining data.Our study strongly supports the monophyly of Aphanocalyx subg.Aphanocalyx, with subg.Antherodontus as its most probable sister group.Bikinia and Tetraberlinia together form a monophyletic group.Bikinia is most likely also a monophyletic group, probably sister to Tetraberlinia, but possibly arising from within it.The internal and terminal branches of this group are relatively short, indicating this group may have radiated fairly recently.Julbernardia is probably monophyletic, and may be sister to Bikinia and Tetraberlinia.The position of the monotypic genus Icuria is still not clear.In the molecular phylogenies this taxon has a long branch with an unstable position.Icuria either has a long separate history or it originates from an anomalous event such as hybridisation.We found strong support for a clade containing Brachystegia, Aphanocalyx, Bikinia, Icuria, Julbernardia and Tetraberlinia.Wieringa, J.J. & Gervais, G.Y.F.(2003).Phylogenetic analyses of combined morphological and molecular data sets on the Aphanocalyx-Bikinia-Tetraberlinia group (Leguminosae, Caesalpinioideae, Detarieae s.l.).In: B.B.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".