Disentangling parasitic vines in the tropics: taxonomic notes for an accurate identification of Cuscuta (Convolvulaceae) and Cassytha (Lauraceae)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Parasitic plants are often associated with agricultural, forestry and grassland economic losses, but they are also keystone species in their natural ecosystems. Cuscuta (Convolvulaceae) and Cassytha (Lauraceae) are parasitic plants which have evolved similar stem habit and morphology, rendering them remarkably similar during the vegetative stage. Since both genera are common in the tropics, misidentifications are frequent, which is detrimental for understanding their geographical distribution, biology and ecology, as well as to the development of adequate control or conservation practices. We here present a practical identification guide for a clear and accurate distinction between Cuscuta and Cassytha, using stems and reproductive structures of both fresh plants and herbarium specimens, aimed at taxonomists and agricultural experts. An identification key, a comparative table, detailed descriptions and illustrations are included to facilitate genus recognition. The current practice of macroscopic observation of the filiform stems, on which many professionals rely, may not be enough to distinguish the two genera. The analysis of stem micromorphology, and/or of the flower or fruit morphology, are necessary for a conclusive identification.
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.
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 it