Data from: Integrating morphological characters, molecular markers, and distribution patterns to assess the identity of Blepharis species from Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Blepharis constitutes an important vegetative part of the Jordanian arid and semi-arid regions, yet whether one or more species occurs in this area is debatable. We addressed this question by assessing morphological characters and employing Inter-Simple Sequence Repeat (ISSR) markers on three populations of Blepharis: two Northern (lower slopes of Kufranjah valley and the Dead Sea region) and one Southern (Wadi al Yutm). Results: Shoots from 19 randomly chosen Blepharis plants per population were harvested for morphological and molecular analyses. Spikes were lax and bract width was considerably shorter than length of the longest lateral spine in the Northern populations compared to the Southern population (P < 0.001). A multivariate linear discriminant analysis (LDA) distinguished the Northern populations from the Southern one largely by internode length, bract width, longest lateral spine length, and bract width to spine length ratio (P < 0.001). The ISSR analysis revealed that 44 markers across eight primers were polymorphic with major allele frequency of 83.6% and an average of 5.5 polymorphic markers per primer. The genetic resemblance among individuals ranged from 0.27 to 0.96. The three Blepharis populations were accordingly clustered into two distinct groups, similar to the analysis of morphological differences. Conclusions: Our results strongly indicate the occurrence of two discrete Blepharis species in Jordan and the hypothesis that the genus is represented by only one species is not supported. The species in Jordan are B. attenutata Napper (represented by the Northern populations) and B. ciliaris [L.] B. L. Burtt (represented by the Southern population). These findings are important for informing floristic work within the region and an updated key has been included in our findings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".