Secretory duct distribution and leaf venation patterns of <i>Aldama</i> species (Asteraceae) and their application in taxonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Features of leaf morphology such as secretory duct distribution and venation patterns are important taxonomical tools; however, some species can have variation in these traits. This study evaluates whether the secretory duct distribution in the midrib and venation is similar across different leaves of 17 Aldama species. Six fully expanded leaves (three each of the largest and smallest size) from five distinct plants were selected to analyze the duct distribution. The samples were histologically examined, and the quantitative data were statistically analyzed. The venation pattern was analyzed in five fully expanded leaves of different plants. In all, 23 secretory duct distribution patterns were identified; they showed intra- and inter-species variations except in Aldama anchusifolia (DC.) E.E.Schill. & Panero and A. trichophylla (Dusén) Magenta. The largest number of ducts was not correlated with leaf and midrib dimensions (width and length). Further, Aldama venation could be divided into two groups: (1) pinnate camptodromous brochidodromous type (four species), and (2) acrodromous venation type and its basal and suprabasal variations (13 species). Thus, distinct secretory duct arrangements of the midrib might assist in the discrimination of Aldama species. The venation patterns were also important for distinguishing the majority of species selected.
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".