Alternative modes of leaf dissection in monocotyledons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a majority of monocotyledons have simple leaves, pinnately or palmately dissected blades are found in four orders, the Alismatales, Pandanales, Dioscoreales and Arecales. Independent evolutionary origins of leaf dissection are indicated by phylogenetic analyses and are reflected in the diversity of mechanisms employed during leaf development. The mechanism of blastozone fractionation through localized enhancement and suppression of growth of the free margin of the leaf primordium occurs in the Araceae and Dioscoreaceae. By contrast, the corrugated, dissected leaves of palms (Arecaceae) develop through a two-step process: first, plications are formed through intercalary growth in a submarginal position and, second, the initially simple leaf blade is dissected through an abscission-like process of leaflet separation. A third mechanism, perforation formation, is employed in Monstera and five related genera of the Araceae. In this mode, discrete patches of cells undergo programmed cell death during lamina development, resulting in formation of open perforations. When perforations are positioned near the leaf margin, mechanical disruption of the thin bridges of marginal tissue results in a deeply pinnatisect blade. Whereas blastozone fractionation defines the early primary morphogenesis phase of leaf development, the other two modes occur later, during the secondary morphogenesis/histogenesis phase. Evolution of these mechanisms presumably has involved recruitment of other developmental programmes into the development of dissected leaves.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".