Novel variation in the floral development of two species of<i>Parthenocissus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares the development of the inflorescences and flowers of Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Virginia creeper) and Parthenocissus tricuspidata (Boston ivy). The development of the reproductive shoots is described from inception to maturity using epi-illumination and scanning electron microscopy. In both species, the shoot apex initiates inflorescence primordia low on the apical flank. An inflorescence primordium produces several bract-opposed branches, which in early development resembles the main shoot. As inflorescence development continues, branch primordia initiate as increasingly larger portions than the inflorescence apical meristem. By late development, branch primordia initiate as larger portions than the apex, which is a process that has been observed in other vitaceous inflorescences. With respect to initiation and early development, the Parthenocissus inflorescence is very similar to the tendril, which has been previously studied; these two organs have never been described to be so similar, and their likeness to the shoot, in early development, provides an idea as to how they may have arisen. An inflorescence branch terminates as a dichasium, which is formed by two nearly simultaneous branching events. Parthenocissus tricuspidata flowers develop a more robust gynoecial disc and stigma than in the P. quinquefolia flower; but the calyx is ring-like in the former and cup-like in the latter. Contrary to the previous assumption that there are no differences in reproductive biology within genera of the Vitaceae, this study has clearly demonstrated variation between two species of Parthenocissus.Key words: floral, development, monopodial, Parthenocissus, inflorescence, Vitaceae.
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".