Floral organogenesis of <i>Prunus laurocerasus</i> and <i>P. serotina</i> and its significance for the systematics of the genus and androecium diversity in Rosaceae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phylogenetic studies have shown that most clades in Prunus are well-supported by the flower structure, but most taxa in the racemose group have not yet been re-evaluated and could contribute to the understanding of the systematic relationships of the subgenera. We examined the inflorescence and flower development in Prunus laurocerasus L. (subgenus Laurocerasus) and P. serotina Ehrh. (subgenus Padus I) using scanning electron microscopy. Our results indicate that they share several floral development characters but differ in the following aspects: (i) all of their flowers are fully developed and each flower is enclosed by a bract and two bracteoles, which later stop development (vs. the terminal flower degenerates and only a single bract subtends each flower); (ii) the style protrudes from the floral bud (vs. the style is crooked and below the anthers); (iii) the outer integument initiates close to the inner one (vs. in the middle of the ovule); and (iv) an obturator appears after initiation of the two integuments (vs. simultaneously with the inner integument). Although our results are preliminary, differences in floral developmental characters support the different origins of Prunus subgenera Laurocerasus and Padus as based on molecular phylogenetic studies.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".