Developmental morphology of the flower of <i>Anthurium jenmanii</i>: a new element in our understanding of basal Araceae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The early stages of development of the inflorescence of Anthurium jenmanii Engl. were examined using scanning electron microscopy. The inflorescence of A. jenmanii consists of more than 100 flowers arranged in recognizable spirals. Each flower has four broad tepals enclosing four stamens that are not visible prior to anthesis. The gynoecium consists of two carpels. The floral primordia are first initiated on the lower portion of the inflorescence, they then increase in size and appear as transversely extended bulges. The two lateral tepals are the first organs to be initiated, followed shortly thereafter by the two median tepals. The two lateral stamens are initiated first, directly opposite the lateral tepals, and are followed by two median stamens initiated directly opposite the median tepals. A two-lobed stigma is clearly visible during the early stages of development of the gynoecium. On some of the young inflorescences, all floral parts were covered by extracellular calcium oxalate crystals. The release of these prismatic crystals occurs before the stamens and petals have reached maturity. The mode of floral development observed in Anthurium has similarities with that reported for Gymnostachys . However, contrary to Gymnostachys, the development of the flower of A. jenmanii is not unidirectional.
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 | 0.000 | 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".