Diversity of calcium oxalate crystals in Cactaceae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The occurrence of various types of calcium oxalate crystals was studied in 251 species and subspecies of Cactaceae to determine whether they are useful characters for Cactaceae systematics. Crystal hydration states were identified by X-ray powder diffraction and polarizing microscopy as monoclinic calcium oxalate monohydrate (COM) and tetragonal calcium oxalate dihydrate (COD). Ninety-eight percent of taxa studied contained either COM or COD crystals, or both. Different morphologies of crystals were further defined by light microscopy and scanning electron microscopy as druses, raphides, styloids (prisms), and crystal sand. In particular, the preponderance of one of the hydration states (COM or COD) was characteristic for certain Cactus subfamilies. Data showed that in Pereskioideae, Maihuenioideae, and Opuntioideae COM is predominant, while in Cactoideae COD prevails. In the remainder of Cactoideae, the crystals were quite variable. In tribe Hylocereeae, many species form both COM and COD as well. In the genera Hylocereus , Epiphyllum , Selenicereus , and Weberocereus , COM forms were almost exclusively represented by raphides together with different crystal forms in their epidermal cells. In the remainder of the Cactoideae, crystals did not follow any observable patterns. Development of crystallographic standards for identifying crystal forms microscopically is proposed for future crystal studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".