The Latin name for Assam tea revisited and the further nomenclatural significance of the three editions of Julius Bosse's <i>Vollständiges Handbuch der Blumengärtnerei</i> – and contemporary compendia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two early validly published names for Assam tea (Camellia sinensis var. assamica “(Choisy) Kitam.)”) are identified: Thea assamica Royle ex Hook. 1847 and T. assamica Hort. Belg. ex Bosse 1854; an amended synonymy and a neotypification (with D.‐W. Zhao) for the name of Assam tea, C. sinensis var. assamica (Hook.) Steenis, are provided. The three editions (1829–1861) of Bosse's Vollständiges Handbuch der Blumengärtnerei are also the neglected places of publication of some plant‐names (or their basionyms) in current use; Grevillea lawrenceana Bosse (neotype designated here by P.M. Olde) is an earlier name for G. curviloba McGill. (Proteaceae); Hedera algeriensis (Araliaceae), the name used by Bosse for a now much‐cultivated ivy, was first published by Morren in 1853; an early valid, available name for the florist's cineraria (Senecio hybridus Bosse) is Cineraria ×kewensis Rob. (Compositae), here neotypified (with D.J.N. Hind); the basionym for the well‐known garden plant‐name, “Erysimum ×kewense” (Cruciferae) is identified and neotypified (with D.J.N. Hind), the accepted binomial validated. The currently accepted name for commercial fustic, Maclura tinctoria (Moraceae), was first validly published in Loudon's Hortus Britannicus (1830).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".