Taxonomic and cytogenetic studies in <i>Opuntia</i> ser. <i>Armatae</i> (Cactaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Opuntia series Armatae is evaluated considering morphological (vegetative, floral, and carpological) and cytogenetical (diploid number, presence of heterochromatin, and physical localization of ribosomal genes) features to shed light on their systematics and evolution. Three complexes (named O. elata, O. megapotamica, and O. monacantha) are proposed to accommodate seven species according to the tepal, fruit, stigma, and seed aril traits. Additional systematic conclusions include the following: (i) O. stenarthra, O. assumptionis, O. cognata, and O. subsphaerocarpa are synonyms; (ii) O. elata is a variable species with two varieties (var. cardiosperma and var. obovata); (iii) O. rioplatense is a synonym of O. elata var. obovata; and (iv) O. megapotamica is a polymorphic species with two varieties (one newly described and a new combination). All species had small similar-sized symmetrical chromosomes and were tetraploid (2n = 44), except for a population of O. arechavaletae and O. monacantha (2n = 22). All showed one or two pairs with CMA + /DAPI − NOR associated bands. The 18–5.8–26S rDNA loci seem to coincide with CMA + /DAPI − /NOR blocks. The number of 5S signals detected was proportional to the ploidy level of the species. A combination of cytogenetic and morphological features helped to differentiate the complexes, species, and varieties of Opuntia ser. Armatae.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".