Gynoecial ontogeny of <i>Anthurium</i>: contributions for floral developmental studies in Araceae (Alismatales)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies on floral development have widened the knowledge on the floral morphology of Araceae, particularly in genera delimited through classical taxonomic treatments. In Pothoideae, floral ontogenetic studies are limited to some representatives of Pothoidium Schott and Pothos L. and only one species of Anthurium Schott, with no focus on gynoecium. This background reveals a lack of ontogenetic data on the largest genus in the clade. This paper presents gynoecial ontogeny of species circumscribed in different sections of Anthurium, describes gynoecial developmental patterns, and evaluates the relevance of ontogenetic characteristics in the taxonomy of the sections studied. New data for the Araceae include the recognition of four floral developmental phases, the carpellary nature of the ovarian septum, and the development of the symplicate and synascidiate zones of the gynoecium. The apical septum described in Anthurium scandens (Aubl.) Engl. is first reported for the genus in this study. We also highlight the importance of these ontogenetic data as new information for the Pothoideae within Araceae and to understand the notable phases of floral development in the reproductive biology of Anthurium.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".