Structural and developmental patterns in the pericarp of Malpighiaceae: new data from winged fruits of <i>Janusia</i>, <i>Mascagnia</i>, and <i>Tetrapterys</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malpighiaceae have highly varied fruits, and their characteristics are traditionally used in taxa delimitation. However, fruit characters are homoplastic; therefore, detailed analyses are indispensable. Here, we have described winged-fruit ontogeny and anatomy of four Malpighiaceae species from different clades, and compared them with others described in the literature, with the goal of recognizing common developmental and structural patterns. Flowers and fruits were collected and processed for light microscopy. In the ovary, the main patterns were a uniseriate outer epidermis, a mesophyll with two or three distinct regions, and an inner epidermis formed by elongated or isodiametric cells. In the pericarp, the uniseriate exocarp appeared to be consistent throughout the family, and the outermost parenchymatic layers of the mesocarp and the inner layers formed by thickened-lignified cells prevailed. Some species also had a middle layer in the mesocarp, composed of lignified cells. The most substantial variation was in the endocarp and was independent of fruit type and phylogenetic position. Three structural patterns were recognized: sclerenchymatous cells, elongated and non-lignified cells, and a seed cushion. These data allow for the identification of important structural patterns in Malpighiaceae, and the high structural variation in the endocarp is promising for its systematics.
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".