Phylogenetic relationships and evolutionary trends in <i>Tillandsia</i> subgenus <i>Diaphoranthema</i> and xerophytic species of subgenus <i>Phytarrhiza</i> (Bromeliaceae: Tillandsioideae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tillandsia subgenera Diaphoranthema and Phytarrhiza s.s. are closely related epiphytic and epilithic plants adapted to xeric habitats in the Americas. Several studies suggested that subgenus Diaphoranthema and the xerophytic species of subgenus Phytarrhiza should not be segregated into different subgenera. In recent phylogenetic analyses of Tillandsioideae, subgenus Phytarrhiza s.l. is revealed as highly polyphyletic, showing a xerophytic lineage closely related to subgenus Diaphoranthema. Moreover, the evolution of neotenic traits, a selfing breeding system and polyembryony have yet to be fully investigated in a phylogenetic context. Infrageneric classifications and phylogenetic relationships were inferred using the plastid matK-trnK and nuclear ETS markers and morphology. Phylogenetic analyses of individual and combined molecular data sets were performed under parsimony and Bayesian inference. Our results confirm subgenus Diaphoranthema as monophyletic if three xeric species of subgenus Phytarrhiza are included. In subgenus Diaphoranthema, aggregates Loliacea and Rectangula were recovered as monophyletic, whereas Myosura was paraphyletic and Caliginosa, Capillaris and Recurvata were polyphyletic. Alternative groupings and morphological trends are discussed. Analysis of morphological characters associated with heterochrony indicates that neoteny may not be the only paedomorphic process in the evolution of this group. Furthermore, paedomorphosis would occur in some vegetative structures, inflorescences and flowers, whereas some fruit and seed traits could be modified by peramorphosis.
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 | 0.000 | 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".