Morphological and anatomical development in the Vitaceae. IX. Comparative ontogeny and phylogenetic implications of<i>Vitis rotundifolia</i>Michx.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The grape family, Vitaceae, is an economically important fruit family. Although the Vitaceae have been used for conservation, viticulture, and horticulture, little is known about the phylogenetic relationships of this family. Recent phylogenetic reconstructions using DNA data have disagreed with traditional classifications and other DNA-based phylogenies by grouping Vitis and Cissus species within one clade and linking Vitis rotundifolia Michx. (muscadine grape) more closely with these Cissus species. This study uses comparative developmental morphology as an independent method to investigate whether V. rotundifolia is more similar to Cissus antarctica Vent. (kangaroo vine) than other Vitis species. Results obtained using epi-illumination light microscopy and histology were compared with those from similar studies of Vitis ‘Ventura’, Vitis riparia Michx., and C. antarctica. Twelve vegetative and floral characters including axillary bud dorsiventrality, uncommitted primordium shape, calyptra, and ring-shaped gynoecial disk placed V. rotundifolia in with other Vitis species. Only two characters, stipule timing and simple tendrils, were common to C. antarctica and V. rotundifolia, suggesting that V. rotundifolia is more similar to Vitis spp. than to C. antarctica, and supporting traditional classifications contrary to ITS1 and trnL DNA phylogenies.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".