MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328328870 · doi:10.12705/623.15

<i>Prumnopitys anglica</i> sp. nov. (Podocarpaceae) from the Eocene of England

2013· article· en· W2328328870 on OpenAlexafffund
David R. Greenwood, Christopher R. Hill, John G. Conran

Bibliographic record

VenueTaxon · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChinese Academy of SciencesUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsPodocarpaceaePodocarpusBiologyGenusBotanyPaleogeneGymnospermNeogeneZoologyCretaceousPaleontologyPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Leaves from the Eocene Bournemouth Freshwater Beds of southern England assigned originally to the genus Podocarpus L'Hér. ex Pers. (Podocarpaceae) as Podocarpus eocenicus Unger—currently treated as Amentotaxus gladifolia (R. Ludwig) D.K. Ferguson, Jähnichen &amp; Alvin—are re‐examined to assess their generic and familial status. Well‐preserved cuticle on one specimen and its gross morphology, together with the morphology of other associated specimens suggests that they should be placed in Prumnopitys Philippi (Podocarpaceae), the long, lanceolate leaves resembling Pr. amara (Blume) de Laub. (= Sundacarpus amarus (Blume) C.N. Page). Because the fossil taxon is consistent with the genus Prumnopitys and not with Amentotaxus gladifolia (Taxaceae), a new species, Prumnopitys anglica D.R. Greenw., C.R. Hill &amp; Conran sp. nov., is proposed. Phylogenetic comparison with other Prumnopitys species suggests that Pr. anglica is close to the extant Australasian species, Pr. amara but is still relatively isolated. The presence of Prumnopitys in the earliest Palaeocene of Asia and the Eocene of southern England supports the view that Podocarpaceae were an uncommon but distinctive component of Northern Hemisphere Late Cretaceous and Palaeogene floras before becoming largely extinct there in the Neogene.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.161
Teacher spread0.145 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTaxonSame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207