<i>Ulmus</i> leaves and fruits from the Early–Middle Eocene of northwestern North America: systematics and implications for character evolution within Ulmaceae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leaves and fruits of Ulmus from the Early–Middle Eocene of British Columbia and Washington are assigned to two species. Ulmus okanaganensis sp.nov. is based on leaves attached to flowering and fruiting twigs and isolated leaves and fruits. Leaves display a polymorphism ranging from large leaves with compound teeth with a blunt apex to small ones with simple teeth resembling those of Zelkova. In extant Ulmus, sucker-shoot leaves, elongation-shoot leaves, and leaves on short annual branches often display a very similar polymorphism. In the fossil, flowers are arranged in fascicles having short pedicels. Fascicles are formed in the axils of leaves of current-year shoots and appear together with the leaves. This is uncommon in modern species of Ulmus, where leaves appear either in spring on previous-year shoots or in autumn in the axils of leaves of current-year shoots. Fruits of U. okanaganensis are samaras with extremely reduced or absent wings. Unwinged fruits of modern Ulmus are typically ciliate along the margin of the endocarp and the persistent styles but only a single fruit of U. okanaganensis has been found preserving hairs. The small, shallowly lobed perianth is situated below the endocarp. A second type of foliage is assigned to Ulmus chuchuanus (Berry) LaMotte. This foliage is wider than that of U. okanaganensis and has more densely spaced secondary veins. It also has characteristic compound teeth with primary and subsidiary teeth displaying conspicuously different orientations. Leaves of U. chuchuanus co-occur with a second type of fruit but have not been found in attachment. These fruits are larger than in U. okanaganensis, with a narrow wing, persistent styles, and a large and wide persistent perianth that tapers abruptly into the perianth tube. A cladistic analysis suggests that U. okanaganensis is nested within the subgenus Ulmus, which is a paraphyletic grade basal to the subgenus Oreoptelea. Ulmus chuchuanus foliage shows affinities to the subgenus Ulmus, while the associated fruits display affinities to the subgenus Oreoptelea.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".