Epilobium royleanum Haussknecht 1879
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3.25. Epilobium royleanum Hausskn. Lectotype (designated by Raven 1962a):— INDIA. “ North-West India ”, s.d., Royle s.n. (K). = Epilobium lividum Haussknecht (1884: 201). Lectotype (designated by Raven 1962a):— INDIA. Uttar Pradesh: Kumaun, seed from near Deoband, 2400 m, Duthie, grown at Kew and collected 30 June 1880, Nicholson s.n. (JE). = Epilobium himalayense Haussknecht (1884: 213). Lectotype (designated by Raven 1962a):— INDIA. Himachal Pradesh: ascent to Werang Pap, Kanawar, 19 August 1847, Thomson s.n. (K000979307!). = Epilobium roseum Schreb. var. dalhousieanum C.B. Clarke (1879: 584). Lectotype (designated by Raven 1962a):— INDIA. Himachal Pradesh: Dalhousie, 2100 m, 11 September 1874, Clarke 22190 (K000913770!). = Epilobium roseum Schreb. var. indicum C.B. Clarke (1879: 584). Type:— INDIA. Baltistan and Kashmir to Kumaon, 1524–3352 m (not located). = Epilobium royleanum Hausskn. f. glabrum Raven (1962a: 360). Type:— INDIA. Jammu and Kashmir: Pahlgam, approximately 34°02’ N, 75°20’ E, 2450 m, 31 July 1945, Stewart 21523 (holotype K000979316!). = Epilobium royleanum Hausskn. f. glandulosum Raven (1962a: 361). Type:— INDIA. Jammu and Kashmir: Baltistan, Hispar Glacier snout, 3200 m, growing by spring, damp ground, 21 August 1960, Polunin 6362 (holotype BM000957934!, isotype E). Distribution: —N Pakistan, Jammu & Kashmir, U Ganga & Indus, C Nepal, U Yarlung Zangbo, M Yarlung Zangbo, L Yarlung Zangbo, S Hengduan, N Hengduan. Note: —Some collections of Epilobium royleanum were misidentify as E. tibetanum. However, E. royleanum has shorter pedicels and longer leaves. Haussknecht (1884) published E. lividum based on a specimen (in JE) and an illustration. Raven (1962a) recorded the specimen in JE (Nicholson s.n.) as the “ holotype ” of E. lividum, and we have seen photo of this specimen in BM (BM001025672). According to Art. 9.1, this specimen (Nicholson s.n. in JE) should be the lectotype.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.024 |
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".