Phylogeny and evolution of ferns: a paleontological perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Ferns traditionally have been identified as megaphyllous plants that reproduce by sporangia borne on leaves (i.e., fronds; Bower 1923; Kaplan and Groff, 1995). Although not all species have the entire set of characters, ferns typically are recognized by sporophytes that display unipolar growth (Rothwell, 1995), are dominated by fronds (Kaplan and Groff, 1995), and are devoid of secondary growth. Many have highly branched fronds, mesarch xylem maturation, and a rhizome stele that is dissected by leaf gaps. Plants that display various combinations of these features occur in the fossil record from the Middle Devonian (i.e., 390 million years ago) to the Recent, but there has been considerable systematic turnover with several prominent clades replacing one another through geological time (Rothwell, 1999). In practice, botanists have traditionally recognized as “ferns” those species that are left over after all other euphyllophytes have been removed to clades with clearly identifiable synapomorphies (Rothwell, 1999). Up to the present, attempts to define ferns within a phylogenetic framework have met with only limited success (Figure 13.1) due to a combination of (1) limited information about many extinct ferns and fern-like plants, and (2) the restricted taxon sampling available for phylogenetic analyses that include only living species. The paleontological record of ferns is incomplete, and thus far has been sampled for only a small fraction of the available fossils (Stockey and Rothwell, 2006). This leaves us with an often confusing picture of inadequately known extinct species that can be difficult to comprehend and appreciate.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".