Morphological and anatomical development in the Vitaceae. VIII. Comparative development of three <i>Cyphostemma</i> (Vitaceae) species reveals important vegetative and reproductive differences among the species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vegetative and floral development of Cyphostemma simulans (C.A. Small) Wild & Drummond, Cyphostemma juttae (Dinter & Gilg) Descoings, and Cyphostemma mappia (Lam) Galet were compared using epi-illumination light microscopy and paraffin sectioning. Cyphostemma simulans is a liana with leaf-opposed tendrils and inflorescences, which both arise from the shoot apical meristem, whereas the other two species are shrubs that lack tendrils and their main shoot terminates in an inflorescence. A shoot apical meristem of C. simulans can be overtopped by an inflorescence, making the architecture appear to develop like a sympodium, which is the architecture shared by the other two species. On the other hand, a terminal inflorescence of C. juttae or C. mappia can be placed in a leaf-opposed position by a precocious axillary branch, making the architecture appear to develop like a monopodium, which is the typical architecture of the Vitaceae. The floral development of all three species is similar in early ontogeny, except for a difference in calyx development between C. mappia and the other two species. Later developmental differences of the septum and gynoecium, in addition to flower colour and phenology, are distinct characteristics that distinguish flowers of each species. Therefore, this study is the first to demonstrate differences in the floral characteristics of Cyphostemma. In addition, it shows how each architecture type (monopodium or sympodium) can resemble the other and so provides stronger evidence about how the unique architecture of the Vitaceae has originated.
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".