Molecular phylogeny of the <i>Ficus virens</i> complex (Moraceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The closely related species present in the subgenera of Urostigma are challenging to classify due to the existence of overlapping morphological characteristics, which makes identification habitually problematic. It is still unresolved whether the species of the Ficus virens complex, which includes F. virens, F. middletonii, F. caulocarpa, F. concinna, and F. superba, are the same or distinct species due to the complexities in classification. To clarify the circumscription between the species and re-evaluate the taxonomical status, morphological characteristics were extensively examined; further, a phylogenetic reconstruction based on two DNA markers (ITS2 and trnH-psbA) in combination with morphological traits was carried out. The phylogenetic tree constructed using the combined morphology and DNA markers revealed that the five species should be demarcated as independent species. This study supports the importance of using both molecular and morphological data for efficient discrimination of species having high similarities. Further investigation into the species present in the subgenera Urostigma may provide additional information regarding the ancestral traits and its evolutionary history.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".