The Structure And Development Of The Stem In The Pteridophyta And Gymnosperms...
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparison of the taxonomic criteria employed for the higher animals and the higher plants respectively results in a striking contrast. Abundant use is made of skeletal characteristics in the classification of the Vertebrata, while such features are employed to a comparatively insignificant extent in the systematic grouping of the Vasculares. The value of the osseous skeleton of the higher animals in determining their affinities has been recognised since the beginning of the last century. It is only comparatively recently, on the other hand, that the fibro-vascular skeleton of the Vasculares has been discriminatingly used for phylogenetic purposes. The Brongniartian school of palaeobotanists considered the possession of secondary woody growth to be an important indication of phaenogamous relationship, and on this ground grouped the Calamites and Sigillarians with the Gymnosperms. A study of the very characteristic primary wood, as well as other less-important features in these two orders, led Williamson and his successors to put the Calamites with the Equisetales and the Sigillarians with the Lycopodiales. These conclusions have been fully confirmed by the subsequent discovery of typical heterospory in the two groups. The above examples will serve to illustrate the value of the primary fibrovascular skeleton from the phylogenetic standpoint. Palaeobotanists have thus led the way in the proper taxonomic use of the fibrovascular skeleton; but from the very nature of their material they have not been able to any extent to use development as a phylogenetic key. Developmental studies which have been so fruitful in zoology have been almost entirely neglected by the Botanist in the case of the sporophyte of the various groups of the Vasculares. Here, again, we owe to a Palaeohotanist the suggestion of the necessity of cultivating this field (D. H. Scott, ‘Presidential Address, Section K, Brit. Assoc.,’ 1896). A preliminary account of the writer's investigations on the development of the sporophyte was read by Professor Ramsay Wright at the May meeting of the Royal Society of Canada, 1896 (“A Theory of the Morphology of Stelar Structures,” ‘Proceedings of the Royal Society of Canada,' p. 106). A further abstract was published in 1897 (‘Report Brit. Assoc., Toronto,' 1897). On account of the extent of the subject and the difficulty of securing material of fossilized and tropical forms, it has been necessary to publish the work in parts. The first of these appeared in 1899, and was devoted to the Equisetaceae (‘Boston Nat. Hist. Memoirs.' vol. 5, No. 5). The second, published in 1900, dealt with the Angiosperms (“Morphology of Central Cylinder in the Angiosperms,” ‘Canadian Inst. Trans.,' vol. 6).
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) | 0.002 | 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".