The development of enantiostyly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enantiostyly, the deflection of the style either to the left (left-styled) or right (right-styled) side of the floral axis, has evolved in at least ten angiosperm families. Two types of enantiostyly occur: monomorphic enantiostyly, in which individuals exhibit both stylar orientations, and dimorphic enantiostyly, in which the two stylar orientations occur on separate plants. To evaluate architectural or developmental constraints on the evolution of both forms of enantiostyly, we examined inflorescence structure and floral development among unrelated enantiostylous species. We investigated relations between the position of left- and right-styled flowers and inflorescence architecture in four monomorphic enantiostylous species, and we examined the development of enantiostyly in nine monomorphic and dimorphic enantiostylous species from five unrelated lineages. The location of left- and right-styled flowers within inflorescences ranged from highly predictable (in Solanum rostratum) to random (in Heteranthera mexicana). There were striking differences among taxa in the timing of stylar bending. In Wachendorfia paniculata, Dilatris corymbosa, and Philydrum lanuginosum, the style deflected in the bud, whereas in Heteranthera spp., Monochoria australasica, Cyanella lutea, and Solanum rostratum, stylar bending occurred at the beginning of anthesis. Comparisons of organ initiation and development indicated that asymmetries along the left-right axis were expressed very late in development, despite the early initiation of a dorsiventral asymmetry. We suggest that the evolution of dimorphic enantiostyly from monomorphic enantiostyly may be constrained by a lack of left-right positional information in the bud.
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".