<i>Lespedeza violacea<i> (L.) Pers. (Fabaceae), a New Species for Wisconsin, U.S.A.</i></i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significance of the Report.No previous specimen of this species from Wisconsin was found.Previous Knowledge.Lespedeza violacea (L.) Pers.(Fabaceae) (violet lespedeza), long known under the synonym L. intermedia (S.Watson) Britton, is a perennial herb native to eastern North America, ranging from Florida to Louisiana, north to southwestern Maine, Vermont, and southern Ontario, west to Michigan, northwestern Indiana, eastern Oklahoma, and Missouri (reports for Kansas were disallowed by McGregor 1986). Fernald (1950) stated that the range of this species includes Wisconsin, but no specimen of this species from Wisconsin was found when searching collections on Harvard University Herbaria databases (HUH-Databases 2023).Gleason and Cronquist (1991) seemingly excluded Wisconsin when giving the western limit of the range as "Mich.and Okla....to Tex."Neither was it attributed to Wisconsin by Fassett (1939), Clewell (1966), Isely (1955, 1998), or Wetter et al. (2001), but Clewell did report disjunctions as far west as southeastern Minnesota, northwestern Illinois, and northeastern-central Texas.Searches under the Online Virtual Flora of Wisconsin (Wisconsin State Herbarium 2023) and Consortium of Midwest Herbaria (2024) failed to locate any specimens from Wisconsin.Lespedeza violacea is also attributed to Wisconsin by Ohashi (2023).Thus, the specimens cited below would seem merely to represent no more than the second record for the state; however, his account likely misrepresents the real situation.In correspondence Dr. Ohashi (pers.comm.)writes that specimens of Lespedeza examined by him are mostly in HUH and TUS and that when preparing the manuscript on the genus for FNA, he referred mainly to works by Clewell (1966) and Isely (1990), as well as Fernald (1950).He goes on to say that "actually, the data on range statements in my parts [seven generic treatments] were probably supplied by the editors [and reviewers] of FNA.A subsequent search at TUS has failed to find any specimen from Wisconsin named either L. violacea or its synonym L. intermedia.In the absence of a verifiable specimen, I am con-
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".