The Evolution and Function of Stylar Polymorphisms in Flowering Plants
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We recognize four major classes of stylar polymorphisms in flowering plants: the heterostylous conditions distyly and tristyly, stigma-height dimorphism, and enantiostyly. These polymorphisms differ in the relative positions of sexual organs and in the number of floral morphs that occur within populations. In heterostyly, stigma and anther heights are reciprocally positioned in the two or three floral morphs; in stigma-height dimorphism the two morphs vary in style length but not anther height; whereas in enantiostyly, flowers differ in whether the style is deflected to the left- or right-side of the flower. We distinguish two forms of enantiostyly depending on whether both style orientations occur on the same plant (monomorphic enantiostyly) or on different plants (dimorphic enantiostyly). Stylar polymorphisms have originated independently in numerous animal-pollinated flowering plant families. Both heterostyly and enantiostyly involve distinct floral syndromes suggesting functional convergence in which the position of the pollinator is important for pollen dispersal and male reproductive success. The function of stigma-height dimorphism remains enigmatic although the occurrence of populations with 1:1 style-morph ratios suggest that, like heterostyly and dimorphic enantiostyly, they are maintained by disassortative mating. We interpret these sexual polymorphisms as floral designs that increase the precision of cross-pollination and reduce lost mating opportunities associated with self-interference, especially geitonogamy. A single adaptive explanation based on frequency-dependent male mating proficiency can explain the evolution and maintenance of the four stylar polymorphisms in plants.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it