Shoot architecture in the VitaceaeThis article is one of a selection of papers presented at the symposium on<i>Vitis</i>at the XVII International Botanical Congress held in Vienna, Austria, in 2005.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the question of how the unique shoot architectural pattern of the Vitaceae, typically with leaf-opposed tendrils or inflorescences in a three-node modular repetitive pattern, can be related to the traditional concepts of monopodial and sympodial shoot development. Based on complete comparative morphological developmental studies of 13 species in six genera, supplemented with observations of 21 other taxa, we have found five shoot architectural patterns in the family. The pattern of shoot architecture is consistent within a species, but there may be more than one pattern present within a genus. Species that lack tendrils, thus exhibiting pattern 1, show sympodial growth. Taxa exhibiting patterns 2, 3, and 4, with tendrils at two of three nodes and with progressively one, two, or three axillary buds within the three-node cycle, grow monopodially, and taxa that exhibit pattern 5, with both tendrils and axillary buds at every node, achieve the pattern via either monopodial or sympodial growth, depending on the species. Although rare in the Vitaceae, pattern 1 is the only one shared with the sister family Leeaceae. We conclude that this was the original shoot architectural pattern, and that the monopodial pattern present in most species today is derived, and unique to the Vitaceae.
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 | 0.001 | 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".