A Theoretical Investigation of the Evolution and Maintenance of Mirror‐Image Flowers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enantiostyly is the deflection of the female sex organ either to the left or to the right side of the floral axis, resulting in mirror-image flowers. Two types of enantiostyly occur: in monomorphic enantiostyly, individuals exhibit both flower forms, whereas in dimorphic enantiostyly, the forms occur on separate plants. Monomorphic enantiostyly is known from at least 10 families, whereas dimorphic enantiostyly is reported in only three. Phylogenetic evidence suggests that monomorphic enantiostyly has evolved from a straight-styled ancestor and that dimorphic enantiostyly is derived from monomorphic enantiostyly. Here, we use theoretical models to investigate the role of pollen transfer in influencing these evolutionary transitions. We used numerical calculations to examine the evolution of monomorphic and dimorphic enantiostyly under different conditions of pollen transfer, inbreeding depression, and pollinator visitation. Our results demonstrate that in comparison to a putative straight-styled ancestor, both monomorphic and dimorphic enantiostyly function to reduce geitonogamous pollen transfer with a concomitant increase in pollen export. Our calculations suggest that the first stage in the evolution of monomorphic enantiostyly involves the deflection of the style only, followed by selection for reciprocity in anther position to promote more precise cross-pollination. Constraints associated with the developmental genetics of left-right asymmetries may account for the low number of evolutionary transitions from monomorphic to dimorphic enantiostyly, despite the evolutionary stability of this condition once it arises.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".