Variation and evolution of herkogamy in Exochaenium (Gentianaceae): implications for the evolution of distyly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS AND AIMS: The spatial separation of stigmas and anthers (herkogamy) in flowering plants functions to reduce self-pollination and avoid interference between pollen dispersal and receipt. Little is known about the evolutionary relationships among the three main forms of herkogamy - approach, reverse and reciprocal herkogamy (distyly) - or about transitions to and from a non-herkogamous condition. This problem was examined in Exochaenium (Gentianaceae), a genus of African herbs that exhibits considerable variation in floral morphology, including the three forms of herkogamy. METHODS: Using maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood methods, the evolutionary history of herkogamic and non-herkogamic conditions was reconstructed from a molecular phylogeny of 15 species of Exochaenium and four outgroup taxa, based on three chloroplast regions, the nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS1 and 2) and the 5·8S gene. Ancestral character states were determined and the reconstructions were used to evaluate competing models for the origin of reciprocal herkogamy. KEY RESULTS: Reciprocal herkogamy originated once in Exochaenium from an ancestor with approach herkogamy. Reverse herkogamy and the non-herkogamic condition homostyly were derived from heterostyly. Distylous species possessed pendent, slightly zygomorphic flowers, and the single transition to reverse herkogamy was associated with the hawkmoth pollination syndrome. Reductions in flower size characterized three of four independent transitions from reciprocal herkogamy to homostyly. CONCLUSIONS: The results support Lloyd and Webb's model in which distyly originated from an ancestor with approach herkogamy. They also demonstrate the lability of sex organ deployment and implicate pollinators, or their absence, as playing an important role in driving transitions among herkogamic and non-herkogamic conditions.
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".