Comparative Floral Development in Cleomaceae Reveals Two Distinct Pathways Leading to Monosymmetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparisons of floral symmetry have important implications for understanding ecological, evolutionary, and molecular mechanisms driving the diversification of angiosperms. Examination of symmetry in Cleomaceae provides an opportunity to compare monosymmetric flowers with the polysymmetric (disymmetric) flowers generated by its sister family, Brassicaceae. In order to better understand the origins of monosymmetry, we studied floral development in 11 species of Cleomaceae. Although all flowers were monosymmetric due to upward curvature of the petal bases near anthesis, two distinct patterns of early development were identified: early monosymmetry and early disymmetry. An enlarged abaxial sepal relative to the other three and petals that remain small in the bud characterize species exhibiting early monosymmetry, while four equally sized sepals throughout development and petals that grow rapidly are found in species with early disymmetry. When these pathways were compared to a phylogeny of the family, a single, derived origin of the disymmetric pathway was observed. Although these interpretations are based on limited sampling and lability exists in early development, we hypothesize that the early monosymmetric developmental pathway is shared with Brassicaceae. These studies also indicate that early and late development are disassociated in Cleomaceae and reveal that dynamic developmental patterns underlie seemingly similar mature morphologies.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".