MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2619155255 · doi:10.11646/phytotaxa.307.2.3

Morphological and phylogenetic relationships of the threatened geophyte Wurmbea novae-zelandiae (Colchicaceae) from New Zealand, with notes on typification

2017· article· en· W2619155255 on OpenAlexaff
Peter B. Heenan, Terry Desmond Macfarlane, Andrea L. Case, Sean W. Graham, Annika Vinnersten, Caroline M. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytotaxa · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant and Fungal Species Descriptions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTepalBiologyTypificationBotanyPerianthPhylogenetic treeTaxonomy (biology)Evolutionary biologyStamenPollenNomenclatureGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The new combination Wurmbea novae-zelandiae was recently made based on published phylogenetic studies, but little information was provided on its relationships based on morphology. This species was originally described as Anguillaria novae-zelandiae, for which a lectotype is designated. Morphological characters of W. novae-zelandiae are re-evaluated and shown to be characteristic of Wurmbea, thereby supporting the revised generic placement. However, W. novae-zelandiae differs from all other Wurmbea species in its diminutive stature, fewer tepals and stamens, and variable floral morphology, with 1–3 carpels, often leaf-like tepals, and aberrant tepal shape and number. DNA sequence data places W. novae-zelandiae as the sister species of W. uniflora, a species not included in earlier phylogenetic studies. These two species share mostly solitary flowers with white tepals, nectaries two per tepal and similar in form and position, small yellow anthers, and styles that are relatively short and recurve as flowering proceeds, with the inner style surface stigmatic for up to half of its length. A revised generic description of Wurmbea is provided to take account of the recently widened concept.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytotaxaSame topicPlant and Fungal Species DescriptionsFrench-language works237,207