Morphological and anatomical development in the Vitaceae. X. Comparative ontogeny and phylogenetic implications of<i>Cissus quadrangularis</i>L.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the grape family, Vitaceae, is of great economic importance, there is little understanding of the relationships between and within the genera. Recent DNA-based phylogenies of the Vitaceae have disagreed with traditional classifications by grouping some Cissus species (e.g., Cissus antarctica Vent.) in a clade with Vitis species, while placing other Cissus species (e.g., Cissus quadrangularis L.) in a monophyletic clade. This study investigates Cissus phylogeny using epi-illumination light microscopy and histological ontogenetic comparisons of vegetative and reproductive characters of Vitis rotundifolia (Forssk.) Vahl, Vitis ‘Ventura’, Vitis riparia Michx., C. antarctica, and C. quadrangularis. Ten characters limited to the Cissus species (connection of stipules, precocious axillary bud initiation, prophyll growth not obviously unequal, timing of mature shoot architecture on axillary buds, lack of spiral inflorescence branching, absence of calyptra, petals closely enveloping anthers, large gynoecial disk, ovary buried in the disk, and production of copious amounts of nectar) support the traditional phylogenies: the monophyly of Vitis and the exclusion of Cissus species from Vitis. The comparison of C. antarctica (Vitis–Cissus clade) and C. quadrangularis (monophyletic Cissus clade) supports the division of Cissus into two clades based on supernumerary buds, stipule connectivity, uncommitted primordium shape, and inflorescence branching patterns.
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".