Floral ontogeny of Illicium Lanceolatum (Schisandraceae) and its implications on carpel homology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are two competing hypotheses for the origin of carpels. The traditional hypothesis favors a phyllosporous origin and regards a conduplicate carpel as an ancestral form that is the result of longitudinal folding of a leaf bearing ovules along its margins. Alternatively, the carpel formation is interpreted as the result of a fusion between an ovule-bearing branch and its subtending leaf-like structure. Illicium is a member of the Austrobaileyales, which are one of the three ANA lines that diverged before all other extant angiosperms. This genus with apocarpous gynoecium has various ancestral morphological characteristics in terms of carpel, ovule, and floral apex. Although various aspects of Illicium morphology have been previously investigated, many evolutionary characteristics remain poorly understood. In this study, the development of carpel, ovule, and floral apex of I. lanceolatum was studied using LM and SEM. The results showed that the ovule primordium originates in the axillary position between the flower axis and carpel wall. So the carpel of Illicium is a leaf-like structure that encircles the ovule. This kind of carpel favors the carpel as a result of fusion between two parts, ovule-bearing branch and its subtending leaf-like structure.
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) | 0.002 | 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".