Towards a collaborative approach to the systematics of <i>Ipomoea</i>: A response to the “Rebuttal to (2786) Proposal to change the conserved type of <i>Ipomoea</i>, nom. cons. (Convolvulaceae)”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A proposal to change the conserved type of Ipomoea was published in December 2020, and recommended by the Nomenclature Committee in 2023. This was done in the light of the possible negative consequences for a name change in the crop sweetpotato, which risk our proposal would significantly minimize. Recently, Muñoz‐Rodríguez & al. have published a rebuttal to this proposal, which we respond to here. The objections raised by these authors focus as much on the expertise and credibility of our group of authors as on the merits of our arguments. In this “rebuttal to the rebuttal”, we respond to the scientific questions raised, highlight demonstrated misinterpretation of the specialised literature relevant to this discussion and counter the assertion that a reclassification of Ipomoeeae is impossible given existing evidence. While the currently recognised genera of Ipomoeeae are not all monophyletic, the proposal to change the conserved type of Ipomoea is a necessary step that will allow exploring an improved classification for the tribe Ipomoeeae, either in the form of a better recircumscription of the genera or an efficient infrageneric classification for Ipomoea. Previously published literature has not advocated for the integration of all genera into a single genus, as Muñoz‐Rodríguez and co‐authors have incorrectly suggested, and instead have recommended a reanalysis of the high morphological diversity of the group in the context of expanded phylogenetic studies, with the possible maintenance of some of the existing genera. We believe that, in a concerted collaborative approach and with the contribution of experts from different regions and scientific backgrounds, an improved classification of Ipomoeeae that integrates the principles of monophyly and diagnosability may soon be achieved, and until when some uncertainty may need to be accommodated, with the added reassurance that, regardless of the direction of future systematic rearrangements, the stability of the scientific name of sweetpotato would be preserved.
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 | 0.148 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.042 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".