Towards uncovering evolution of lineage-specific calcium oxalate crystal patterns in Piperales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Piperales is among the largest and most diverse angiosperm orders (>4000 species), occurring broadly in tropical and temperate habitats. Twenty-four of the species from 12 genera, representing all lineages of Piperales, except the holoparasitic Hydnoraceae, display a mixture of leaf calcium oxalate crystal types found in previous studies of the two genera of Piperaceae subfamily Piperoideae (Peperomia Ruiz & Pav. and Piper L.). Crystal macropatterns, a result of varying leaf anatomies and diverse habitats, are investigated in a comparative way by using clearings and recent molecular phylogenetic hypotheses to trace crystal types and macropattern evolution. Ancestral character reconstruction reveals that the most recent common ancestor of Piperales had either crystal sand or druses or both and that prisms, raphides, and styloids are derived from the ancestral crystal type(s). These results are also recovered for both the ancestors of the perianth-less and the perianth-bearing Piperales. Raphides or druses are found in the two other subfamilies of Piperaceae (Verhuellioideae and Zippelioideae). Asaraceae and Lactoridaceae display crystal sand, whereas Aristolochia L. (Aristolochiaceae) species display mainly druses. Our crystal investigation, combined with ancestral character reconstruction, suggests that styloids, raphides, and prisms are derived within Piperales from crystal sand or druses.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".