Abstract
Encalypta vulgaris is well known for its wide morphological variation, here we study morphological and genetic variation of E. vulgaris in Scandinavia and compare this with the closely related E. rhaptocarpa and the morphologically similar E. mutica. Our morphological and genetic results indicate that Scandinavian plants of E. vulgaris s.l. includes two taxa, E. vulgaris s.s. and a new species here described as E. driva. The two species differ genetically by plastid markers while the included nuclear markers do not differentiate between the two. Morphologically they can be separated both by gametophytic and sporophytic characters. We also clarify the distinction between E. mutica and the newly described E. driva which have been confused in Scandinavia.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 6
Claim · model-written summary
Scandinavian plants of E. vulgaris s.l. include two taxa: E. vulgaris s.s. and the new species E. driva.
- Taxon
- Encalypta vulgaris
_3332.JPG?width=60)
Encalypta vulgarise1 - Outcome
- two taxae2
- Setting
- Scandinaviane2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_3332.JPG?width=500)
Verbatim
e1“Encalypta vulgaris is well known for its wide morphological variation”
e2“Scandinavian plants of E. vulgaris s.l. includes two taxa, E. vulgaris s.s. and a new species here described as E. driva”
Claim · model-written summary
A new species, Encalypta driva, is described from Scandinavian plants.
- Taxon
- Encalypta drivaEncalypta drivat0
- Outcome
- new speciese2
- Setting
- Scandinaviane2
Verbatim
t0“Encalypta driva”
e2“Scandinavian plants of E. vulgaris s.l. includes two taxa, E. vulgaris s.s. and a new species here described as E. driva”
Claim · model-written summary
The two species differ genetically by plastid markers.
- Taxon
- Encalypta vulgarisEncalypta vulgarise1
- Outcome
- differ geneticallye3
- Qualifier
- by plastid markerse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Encalypta vulgaris is well known for its wide morphological variation”
e3“The two species differ genetically by plastid markers while the included nuclear markers do not differentiate between the two”
Claim · model-written summary
Included nuclear markers do not differentiate between the two species.
- Taxon
- Encalypta vulgarisEncalypta vulgarise1
- Outcome
- differentiatee3
- Qualifier
- the included nuclear markers do not differentiate between the twoe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Encalypta vulgaris is well known for its wide morphological variation”
e3“The two species differ genetically by plastid markers while the included nuclear markers do not differentiate between the two”
Claim · model-written summary
The two species can be separated morphologically by gametophytic and sporophytic characters.
- Taxon
- Encalypta vulgarisEncalypta vulgarise1
- Outcome
- separatede4
- Qualifier
- by gametophytic and sporophytic characterse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Encalypta vulgaris is well known for its wide morphological variation”
e4“Morphologically they can be separated both by gametophytic and sporophytic characters”
Claim · model-written summary
The distinction between E. mutica and E. driva is clarified, as they had been confused in Scandinavia.
- Taxon
- Encalypta vulgarisEncalypta vulgarise1
- Outcome
- distinction between E. mutica and the newly described E. drivae5
- Setting
- Scandinaviae5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Encalypta vulgaris is well known for its wide morphological variation”
e5“We also clarify the distinction between E. mutica and the newly described E. driva which have been confused in Scandinavia”