Comparison of the development of stem galls induced by<i>Aulacidea hieracii</i>(Hymenoptera: Cynipidae) on hawkweed and by<i>Diplolepis spinosa</i>(Hymenoptera: Cynipidae) on rose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant galls induced by two distantly related species of cynipid wasps, Aulacidea hieracii Bouché, which belongs to a basal lineage and induces galls on Hieracium umbellatum L., and Diplolepis spinosa (Ashmead), which belongs to a derived group and induces galls on Rosa blanda Ait. and Rosa rugosa Thunb., were compared. As gall characters are determined by the wasp rather than the host plant, we hypothesized that information on gall development would contribute to our understanding of the evolution of the cynipid complex. Galls induced by both species are spherical and multichambered and arise on stems. All stages of gall development were examined including host plant response to oviposition and the eggs, gall induction, reaction of the plant to larval feeding, and the formation of nutritive cells, vascular tissues, and sclerenchyma within the gall during growth and maturation. Galls of A. hieracii develop in a manner similar to galls inhabited by inquiline cynipids, a basal lineage to which they are closely related. Aulacidea hieracii lay eggs in a sticky cluster, the eggs cause proliferation of nearby stem tissues, and freshly hatched larvae crawl to sites where each induces a separate chamber. Galls of D. spinosa are induced from eggs deposited in slits between the base of leaf primordia near the tips of leaf buds with one end of the egg touching the procambium. Freshly hatched larvae enter a cavity that forms beneath each egg. Galls of A. hieracii exhibit anatomical and developmental features that are less complex and intricate than are the galls of D. spinosa. The term “asterids” is proposed for cynipid galls that are developmentally and anatomically simple and develop on herbaceous plants and the term “rosids” for cynipid galls that are developmentally and anatomically complex and develop on woody plants such as roses and oaks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".