MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514975517 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2016-0039

<i>Cecilanthus polymerus</i>, a novel multiparted flower from the mid-Cretaceous Rocky Point locality, Maryland

2016· article· en· W2514975517 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patrick S. Herendeen, James A. Doyle, Peter K. Endress, Masamichi Takahashi

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArgonne National LaboratoryOffice of ScienceU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsBiologyPerianthGynoeciumBotanyTepalLoculePollenOvuleStamen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A flower from the early Cenomanian of northeastern Maryland, Cecilanthus polymerus gen. et sp. nov., is described using SEM and synchrotron X-ray microtomography. The flower has &gt;20 strap-shaped tepals, ca. 50 spatulate stamens with embedded adaxial pollen sacs and possibly H-valvate dehiscence, and ca. 100 more-or-less plicate carpels. Floral phyllotaxis is whorled, with &gt;10 parts per whorl, but slightly irregular. Pollen and ovules are not preserved, but locule shape suggests that the carpels are uniovulate. Similar characters occur in extant Magnoliales and the basal ANITA grade, but never in combination. In an attempt to resolve these ambiguities, we performed morphological phylogenetic analyses, with the arrangement of extant taxa constrained to trees based primarily on molecular data. With anther dehiscence and ovule number treated as unknown, Cecilanthus has several most-parsimonious positions: nested in Nymphaeales, nested in Magnoliales, sister to Laurales, and sister to Chloranthaceae. However, scoring anther dehiscence as H-valvate and ovule number as = 1, increases support for a position in Magnoliales. Cecilanthus demonstrates that the early radiation of angiosperms produced floral morphotypes unlike those in any surviving taxa, and it illustrates the value of characters such as pollen morphology and seed anatomy for phylogenetic placement of floral mesofossils.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.803

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207