A Revised Sectional Classification of <i>Plukenetia</i> L. (Euphorbiaceae, Acalyphoideae) with Four New Species from South America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract—We present a phylogenetic classification for Plukenetia (Euphorbiaceae, Acalyphoideae) based on morphology and molecular phylogenetic studies using nuclear (ETS, ITS, KEA1 introns 11 and 17, TEB exon 17) and plastid (matK, ndhF, psbA-trnH) DNA data. Plukenetia comprises 25 species divided into six sections, with three new sections and four new species described here. The circumscription of Plukenetia is unaltered from recent treatments and we continue to recognize Romanoa as distinct. The sections of Plukenetia correspond with the subclade system proposed by Cardinal-McTeague and Gillespie (2016): P1 = P. sect. Fragariopsis comb. et stat. nov.; P2 = P. sect. Penninerviae sect. nov.; P3 = P. sect. Plukenetia; P4 = P. sect. Angostylidium; and P5 = P. sect. Hedraiostylus + P. sect. Madagascarienses sect. nov. The sections are distinguished by a combination of leaf venation, staminate flower morphology, pistillate flower number, style morphology, fruit type, and seed size. Additionally, we describe three new species from South America belonging to sect. Penninerviae: Plukenetia brevistyla and Plukenetia megastyla from the Amazon basin and Plukenetia chocoensis from the Chocó Biogeographic Region of Colombia. The new Amazonian species are morphologically similar to P. brachybotrya but distinguished by their style shape and size. The new Colombian species is morphologically similar to P. penninervia but distinguished by its elongate basilaminar extrafloral nectaries, presence of abaxial laminar extrafloral nectaries, and longer inflorescences. We also describe a new species from sect. Plukenetia, Plukenetia sylvestris, which is found in central and southern Peru. This species is suggested to be the wild progenitor of the cultivated P. carolis-vegae, differing by its smaller seeds/fruits and fewer stamens. Molecular data, including a new ETS phylogeny sampling P. brevistyla, support our new taxa as distinct. Keys to the sections and species of Plukenetia are provided and we designate 12 new lectotypes for Plukenetia and Romanoa.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".