<i>Rhodoscirpus</i> (Cyperaceae: Scirpeae), a new South American sedge genus supported by molecular, morphological, anatomical and embryological data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In its broadest sense, Scirpus consists of a heterogeneous assemblage of up to 250 species, but modern circumscriptions suggest that only 40–50 species are part of the genus. Despite a narrower definition of the genus, atypical species continue to be segregated from Scirpus with a common pattern being the removal of Southern Hemisphere taxa to other genera and tribes. In South America, the morphology of remaining Scirpus species also suggests that they are not closely related to Scirpus s.str., but most of these taxa are only known from their types, making a detailed analysis of their generic affinities difficult. One notable exception is Scirpus asper, a species that is relatively common in the mountains and adjacent lowlands of Peru south to Argentina. Although this species possesses features used in the circumscription of Scirpus, such as cauline leaves, flat leaf blades and anthelate inflorescences, it is known to differ from Scirpus s.str. by its Schoenus ‐type embryo, and most of its presumed allies are now placed in different genera (e.g., Scirpus analecti ≡ Cypringlea analecta; Scirpus giganteus ≡ Androtrichum giganteum ). In this study, we use DNA sequence data from the plastid ( matK, ndhF ) and nuclear (ETS‐1f) genomes to demonstrate that Scirpus asper is not closely related to Scirpus s.str., but sister to Phylloscirpus within the predominantly South American Zameioscirpus clade ( Amphiscirpus, Phylloscirpus, Zameioscirpus ). When combined with morphological, anatomical and embryological data, results indicate that S. asper is best treated as the sole species of a new monotypic genus, Rhodoscirpus . The implications of these results on the taxonomy of tribe Scirpeae are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".