The majestic canopy-emergent genus Dinizia (Leguminosae: Caesalpinioideae), including a new species endemic to the Brazilian state of Espírito Santo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For almost 100 years the genus Dinizia has been treated as monospecific. The genus was first described by Ducke ( 1922 ) to accommodate the single species D. excelsa Ducke, a rain forest canopy-emergent of impressive stature (some individuals over 60 m tall are recorded from the Brazilian Amazon). Ducke named the tree after his friend José Picanço Diniz, doctor-in-law and philanthropist, thanks to whom botanical exploration in Trombetas was made possible. Burkart ( 1943 ) placed Dinizia in his tribe Mimozygantheae based on the similar imbricate sepals and indehiscent fruits of D. excelsa and Mimozyganthus carinatus (Griseb.) Burkart. In addition, both species have a nectary in a distinct hypanthium (Ancibor 1969 ). The fruits of the two species are, however, vastly different in size and texture and we now know that the two species are not closely related phylogenetically (Luckow et al. 2005 ); the nectary in the hypanthium appears to have evolved independently in the two taxa. The tribe Mimozygantheae has since been disbanded, and Mimozyganthus Burkart was shown to belong to tribe Mimoseae, and sister to a clade comprising the two genera Piptadeniopsis Burkart and Prosopidastrum Burkart (Luckow et al. 2005 ). Luckow et al. ( 2003 ), based on molecular and morphological data, found Dinizia to be more closely related to caesalpinioid genera than to genera in the Mimosoideae. This placement of the genus is supported by it having flowers with a hypanthium, a stylar groove, and imbricate petals, “characters either unusual or unknown among other mimosoids” (Luckow et al. 2003 ). Indeed, Ducke ( 1949 ) had already commented on the apparent intermediate position of Dinizia between the mimosoids and the caesalpinioids. Barneby et al. ( 2011 ) excluded Dinizia from their treatment of the mimosoids for the Flora of the Guianas . Recent molecular studies (Bruneau et al. 2008 ; LPWG 2017 ) have placed Dinizia in the Caesalpinioideae, close to some other members of the Dimorphandra group. The genus now belongs to a re-circumscribed Caesalpinioideae, but is not closely related to any genera in the mimosoid clade (LPWG 2017 ).
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".