The correct name for an Aquilegia (Ranunculaceae) hybrid of the parentage Aquilegia flavescens × A. formosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aquilegia × miniana (J.F.Macbr. & Payson) Cronk, hybr. & stat. nov. is the correct name for the hybrid Aquilegia flavescens S.Watson × A. formosa Fisch. & DC. var. formosa. In 1916 Payson and Macbride, while exploring the mountains of Idaho, found populations of Aquilegia that were pink in flower colour and appeared intermediate between the yellow-flowered A. flavescens and red-flowered A. formosa. They named these plants A. flavescens var. miniana J.F.Macbr. & Payson. There has been uncertainty over whether their type collections (in GH, RM, MO, US, E, CM, CAS, NY) do indeed represent hybrids or pink-flowered morphs of A. flavescens. Using a Wells diagram, the holotype (in the Gray Herbarium of Harvard University) is shown to be intermediate, allowing its identification as a clear hybrid. However, some of the isotype material is indistinguishable from A. flavescens. The holotype matches material from British Columbia that has been determined to be of hybrid origin using molecular and morphological data. A. flavescens var. miniana J.F.Macbr. & Payson is, therefore, an available name for the hybrid, which is here raised to the status of hybrid binomial.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.086 | 0.031 |
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".