Floral development and structure of <i>Davidsonia</i> (Cunoniaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few data on floral development and morphology are available for the monotypic Australian genus Davidsonia. New data on floral form and development are presented for Davidsonia, and comparisons are made to allied clades. Phylogenetic analysis allies Davidsonia with core Cunoniaceae. Flower maturation on each branch of the cauliflorous inflorescences is basipetal, beginning with the terminal flower. Flowers are hypogynous, radially symmetrical, and have a uniseriate perianth that consists of a campanulate calyx. Davidsonia has been traditionally allied with Cunoniaceae, and it shares various basic floral attributes, especially gynoecial states, with some members of this family. The bicarpellate gynoecium of Davidsonia has an ovary that is completely synorganized and biloculate, two separate styles that have prominent ventral commissures, and terminal, papillate stigmas. Davidsonia differs most from core Cunoniaceae in androecial morphology, including the development of the androecium and the form of stamens. The stamens of Davidsonia display a mosaic of states present among members of Oxalidales (including Cephalotaceae, Cunoniaceae, Elaeocarpaceae, and Tremandraceae) in which the genus is nested. Although Davidsonia shares various floral states with Cunoniaceae, it can best be perceived as displaying a mosaic of features that occur more broadly among Oxalidales.Key words: Cunoniaceae, Davidsonia, flower development, morphology, Oxalidales.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".