Aspects of inflorescence and floral development in the putative basal angiosperm<i>Amborella trichopoda</i>(Amborellaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amborella has woody axes whose development is intrinsically plagiotropic and determinate. The tree habit is achieved through overtopping of older axes by basally produced younger axes, as in Mangenot's model. Inflorescence units, which are produced in the axils of distal leaves, may be described as extended cymes, each branch ending in a flower. Basal bracteoles have a decussate arrangement, which is modified to an alternate phyllotaxis distally. Flowers produce one or more additional bracteoles with a rapid transition to the spiral phyllotaxis of the broad overlapping tepals. In this transition the initially conical floral apex becomes invaginated to form a floral cup, with subsequent appendages appearing on its inner margin. The floral apex then forms the flat base of the cup but retains a discrete single tunica layer. The receptacular bowl is deepened and narrowed by the basal meristem of each appendage, the last formed floral organs usually consuming the floral meristem. Sexual parts are more numerous in male than female flowers, accounting for their size difference, but primordia of stamens and carpels are initially very similar. Floral symmetry is largely a consequence of close packing of appendages within the floral cup. In its initial stages of development the flower does not conform to any conventional floral model in angiosperms and is better regarded as highly specialized rather than ancestral in its synorganization. This is not unexpected in a lineage of such long independent evolution.Key words: Amborella, basal angiosperm, development, inflorescence, primitive flower.
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".