A Phenetic Study of the Native Species of the Family Fabaceae Lindl. in Iraq.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distinguishable morphological qualitative and quantitative traits for 310 native taxa of 46 genera within the Fabaceae family were selected. The taxa were treated numerically analyzed as OTUs; based on the selected characteristics variations the UPGMA dendrograms by the MVSP windows program were constructed. The relationships among studied taxa were determined and illustrated. The results exhibited that all taxa are monophyletic due to the similarity in the specific characteristics of the family, the divergences among groups, or among taxa of a single group caused by dissimilarities. At different levels, three groups and six sub-groups were set among the genera, the genus Astragalus L. had the most distance relationship from other genera at level GGSc=0.67, due to the abundance of its taxa and a large number of differences among them. The relationship degrees among all studied taxa except Astragalus taxa analyzed, two groups and seven subgroups were identified at levels GGSc= 0.74 and GGSc= 0.77, detailed and illustrated. REFERENCES Abozeid, A., Yang L. J., and Tang Zh. 2017. “Cluster Analysis of Leaf Macro- and Micro- Morphological Characteristics of Vicia L. (Fabaceae) and Their Taxonomic Implication.” International Journal of Experimental Botany, Phyton 86(1): 306–17. Abozeid, A, Yang L. J., and Tang Zh. 2018. “Taxonomic Implication of Embryo Micromorphology in the Genus Vicia L. (Fabaceae).” Plant Systematics and Evolution 304(1): 33–42. Al-dabbagh, S. T. S, and Saeed J. F. 2019. “The Phenetic Study of Distributed Species of Valerianaceae Batsch Family in Kurdistan Region-Iraq.” Zanco Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences 31(3). Al-Joboury, K. R., AL-Azerg L. G., and Aliwy S. A.. 2017. “Morphological , Anatomical and Numerical Taxonomy Studies for Some Species of the Fabaceae Family.” J. Bio. Env. Sci. 11(5): 117–23. Davis, P. H. 1970. Flora of Turkey and East Aegean Islands. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1-601. Fayed, A. A., El-hadidy A. M. H., Faried A. M., and Olwey A. O. 2019. “Taxonomic Implications of Multivariate Analyses of Egyptian Ononis L. (Fabaceae) Based on Morphological Traits.” Korean Journal of Plant Taxonomy 49(1): 13–27. Galalaey, A. M. K., Shaban M. A., Rasul Kh. M. A., Darwesh T. D., Uzun A., Youssef S. M. A., M. and Alma M. H. 2021. “Ethnobotanical Study of Some Wild Edible Plants in Hujran Basin, Kurdistan Region of Iraq.” Zanco Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences 33(s1): 19–30. Husaini, S., and Iwo G. A. 1992. “Cytomorphological Studies of Some Weedy Species of the Family Leguminosae from Jos Plateau, Nigeria.” Feddes Repertorium 103(1–2): 111–20. Metcalfe, C. R., and Chalk L.. 1957. ANATOMY OF THE DICOTYLEDONS , Leaves, Stem, and Wood in Relation to Taxonomy with Notes on Economic Uses. Vol. 1. Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 502. Mirzaei, L., Assadi M., Nejadsatari T., and Mehregan I. 2015. “Comparative Seed and Leaf Micromorphology of Colutea Species (Fabaceae) from Iran.” Environ Exp Biol 13: 183–87. Mulumba, J. W., and Kakudidi E. 2010. “Numerical Taxonomic Study of Acacia Senegal (Fabaceae) in the Cattle Corridor of Uganda.” South African Journal of Botany 76(2): 272–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2009.11.005. Rechinger, K. H. 1979. Flora Iranica, Papilionaceae I - Viciaeae. No. 140. Grz-Austria: Academische Druk-u. Verlagsanstalt, 1-152. Rechinger, K. H. 1984a. Flora Iranica, Papilionaceae II. No. 157. Grz-Austria: Academische Druk-u. Verlagsanstalt, 1-427. Rechinger, K. H. 1984b. Flora Iranica, Papilionaceae II - Tabulae. No. 157. Grz-Austria: Academische Druk-u. Verlagsanstalt, 570-577. Rechinger, K. H. 1999. Flora Iranica, Papilionaceae III, Astragalus I. No. 174. Grz-Austria: Academische Druk-u. Verlagsanstalt, 1-379. Rechinger, K. H. 2001. Flora Iranica, Papilionaceae IV, Astragalus II. No. 175. Graz-Austrtia: Academische Druk-u. Verlagsanstalt, 579. Simpson, M. G. 2006. Plant Systematics. Canada: Elsevier Inc, 334-335. Sneath, P. H. A., and Sokal R. R. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy, the Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification. San Francisco: Freeman, 573. Stace, C. A. 1980. Plant Taxonomy and Biosystematics. Bath, Great Britain: Pitman Press, 76-115. Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant Taxonomy. New York, United States of America: Columbia Univ. Press, 218-233. Taia, W. K. 2004. “Leaf Characters Within Tribe Trifolieae (Family Leguminosae).” Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 7(8): 1463–72. Toksoy, S., Öztürk M., and Sağiroğlu M. 2015. “Phylogenetic and Cladistic Analyses of the Enigmatic Genera Bituminaria and Cullen (Fabaceae) in Turkey.” Turkish Journal of Botany 39(1): 60–69. Townsend, C .C. and Guest, E. 1974. Flora of Iraq. Vol. 3. Baghdad, Iraq: Ministry of Agriculture and Agrariian Reform of the Republic of Iraq, 54-661. Yaradua, S. S., Alzahrani D. A., and Bello A. 2019. “Numerical Taxonomic Study of the Genus Crotalaria L. (Crotalarieae, Fabaceae) in Nigeria.” Biodiversity Research and Conservation 50(1): 25–32. Von Denffer, D, Schumacher, W., Magdefrau K., Ehrendorfer F., Bell P. and Coombe, D. 1971. Strasburger’s Textbook of Botany. Great Britain: Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd, 877. Zohary, M. 1946. The Flora of Iraq and Its Phytogeographical Subdivision. No. 3. ed. Dep. Agriculture. Bull. Baghdad. Baghdad, Iraq: Government Press, 140-141. Zorić, L., Merkulov L., Luković J., and Boža P. 2009. “Leaf Epidermal Characteristics of Trifolium L. Species from Serbia and Montenegro.” Flora: Morphology, Distribution, Functional Ecology of Plants 204(3): 198–209.
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 | 0.000 | 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".