Lower Cretaceous conifers from Apple Bay, Vancouver Island: <i>Picea</i>-like leaves, <i>Midoriphyllum piceoides</i> gen. et sp. nov. (Pinaceae)This paper is one of a selction of papers published on the Special Issue on Systematics Research.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A diverse assemblage of fossil conifer leaves was identified in calcareous marine concretions from the Lower Cretaceous (Valanginian–Hauterivian) Apple Bay locality, Vancouver Island. Of the hundreds of isolated leaf fragments, most show affinities to Pinaceae. Leaves with closest similarities to Picea (spruce) were studied using cellulose acetate peels. Picea-like leaves vary in cross-section from rhomboidal, pentagonal, triangular, to ovoid. One fused vascular bundle with a centrally located ray and abaxial sclerenchyma is surrounded by a circular endodermis and transfusion tissue. Mesophyll is plicate containing two lateral external resin canals surrounded by a sclerenchyma sheath. Hypodermal fibres are one to three layers thick, except in areas of stomata. Leaves are amphistomatic, with sunken guard cells. Vascular bundles are identical anatomically to Picea; however, plicate mesophyll is similar to that in leaves of Pinus. Extensive sclerenchyma in the hypodermis and surrounding resin canals differs from that in most extant Picea. The major difference between these leaves and those of Picea is leaf shape. These fossil leaves probably belong to an extinct pinaceous conifer, and are described as Midoriphyllum piceoides gen. et sp. nov. Similar evidence from Cretaceous seed cones suggests that like the angiosperms, the Pinaceae were undergoing rapid mosaic evolution during the Lower Cretaceous.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".