The DOI matches its Crossref record; 116 of the 116 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 9 of the 220 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
A handbook of plant tissue culture, by Philip R. White...
Open accessAbstract
a wound in a "normal" individual take part in an orderly granulation, closing the wound, form- ing well-limited scar tissue, organizing a harmonious replacement of the injured regions, while in an individual carrying a cancer, even at some distant part of the body, cells of the same region may sion.If, on the other hand, there has been a true segregation and loss of function so that the cells are, in the mature organism, no longer totipotent, * Italic numbers refer to bibliography.roots (center), or merely wound callus (right), depending on the spatial orientation of the cut, showing the dependence of morphogenetic expression on fortuitous external factors.(From Goebel, K. 1908.Einleitung in die experimentelle Morphologie der Pflanzen.220, fig.Ill, 293.) to grow cells and small groups of cells in suitable nutrients and to study their behavior.The dis- cipline which Haberlandt thus outlined is that which, in the four decades since his paper, has gradually crystallized into what we know today like a comparable degree.Inthe first place, ani- mal cells throughout the body are regularly bathed in one or both of two characteristic and essentially complete nutrient fluids, the blood and lymph.These can be easily removed from the body in large quantity.They serve as basic "natural" nutrients for animal cells in which such cells can be immersed without serious shock.They can be analyzed at leisure to determine which of their constituents are truly essential.In the second /'hint Tissue Cult/ire **Msl8& Pig. 3. Segments of larvae of Bana palustris (left) and R. sylvatica (right) having differenl pigmentation, grafted together in the early embryonic stages.Each retains its own specific char- acteristics in intimate anatomical and physiological contacl with the other.Al the right, progressive stages in development.At the upper left, histological detail of the region of union between the two.Compare with Fig. 2. (From Earrison, R. G. L904.Ark.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
White’s 1943 handbook reviews the history and methods of plant tissue culture, arguing that excised plant cells/tissues can be grown under controlled conditions and used to study nutrition, physiology, pathology, and morphogenesis. It is primarily a methodological synthesis, not a primary experimental report.
Key findings
- Plant tissue culture history is divided into four periods: 1834–1900, 1900–1922, 1922–1934, and 1934–1939; White dates the first prolonged cultivation of excised roots to 1934, satisfactory synthetic media to 1937, and prolonged cultivation of undifferentiated plant tissues to 1939.
- Routine excised tomato root cultures averaged about 7–8 mm growth per culture per day; optimum temperature was about 27°C for wheat roots and nearer 30°C for tomato, with a 5°C rise above optimum capable of killing cultures if maintained.
- For root experiments, 20 replications per condition were standard; differences up to 12% were not statistically significant, 24–25% were doubtful, and 31% or more were highly significant.
- Linear increment measurements ignoring branches erred by about 5–8% compared with dry weights, while measurement itself had a mean error of 6–8%.
Methods
- Design: a handbook/review that synthesizes historical literature and laboratory procedures for plant tissue culture, including root tips, callus, cambium, procambium, and embryos.
- Data/sample: cited experiments and the author’s laboratory protocols, with quantitative examples from excised root cultures and nutrient studies.
- Main analysis: narrative synthesis and methodological prescription, including nutrient formulations, sterilization, culture techniques, growth measurement, replication, and statistical interpretation.
Limitations
- Stated: the field is “still too new to be frozen into definite patterns,” and the account “merely attempts to bring it as nearly up to date as possible”; many fields remained untouched.
- Evident from the text: it is a 1943 handbook whose coverage ends in the early 1940s and relies on literature and laboratory practice rather than a single systematic experimental study.
- Evident from the provided text: the OCR is fragmentary and contains missing or duplicated passages, so some details are incomplete.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
98 Own interpretation · 84 No basis given · 63 Sources not found · 24 Not checked yet · 23 No full text of the sources · 20 Own result · 3 Supported so far · 3 Partly supported · 3 Own method · 1 Supported · 1 Not supported · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“With the work of his com- patriot Nobecourt (Nobecourt, 1937, 74, 1938, 75, 76, 1939, 77; Nobecourt and Dusseau, 1938, 311), and with White's (Fig. 12) independent work in America, these studies have led to the first really successful prolonged cultivation of undifferenti- ated plant tissues (White, 1939, 78, 333) .”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nobecourt, 1937
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Nobecourt, 1938 source
In the main text (page unavailable), Nobécourt reports that carrot tissue fragments grew substantially and could be transferred to fresh medium to produce successive cultures. He contrasts this with earlier tissue cultures whose growth stopped after a few months, supporting the citation’s use for Nobécourt’s contribution to prolonged plant-tissue cultivation. The paper describes the successive cultures as losing their organized polarity, though it also notes some differentiated cells within them. (LLM, conf=0.85)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites White, 1939 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“This is generally true of animal tissue cultures (Ebeling, 1921, 456; Parker, 1932, 422, 423, 1938, 26) and cultures of undifferentiated plant materials (White, 1939, 78).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Ebeling, 1921, 456 source
The Ebeling citation is attached to the animal-tissue-culture part of the sentence, not the plant-material part. In the Conclusions (p. 243), Ebeling reports that two tissue fragments in identical media can grow at almost the same rate; the measured differences for the connective-tissue strain were under 10%. The paper makes no animal–plant comparison, but that comparison is not attributed to Ebeling by the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not matchedcites Parker, 1932, 422, 423
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites White, 1939, 78 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Lund (1931, 247) and Rosene and Lund (1935, 319) have shown that there is a correspond- ing electropotential gradient which can be modi- fied by imposing artificial oxygen-hydrogen gradi- ents.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lund (1931, 247) source
- Supportedcites Rosene and Lund (1935, 319) source
Section 4 (page not available in our copy) reports an electropotential gradient along the root apex that flattened or inverted in hydrogen and became steeper in oxygen. The Discussion likewise states that changing oxygen tension modified the gradient, supporting the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In 1922 one of his students, Kotte, 51, 52, (Fig. 10) made the first important experimental contribution to the sub- ject.Kotte chose to work not with single, green, mature cells, but with colorless meristems, excised root tips.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kotte, 51, 52
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Attempts were, of course, made to duplicate Carrel's and Lewis' brilliant results, with plant tissues, by use of some”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schmucker, 1929, 110
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In the hands of other workers, all preparations of tissue juices, xylem sap, phloem exudate, liquid endosperm, etc., have given evidence of toxicity”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Prat, 1927, 451
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Bobbins, 1922, 177
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Bobbins and V. B. White, 1937, 178
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The most satisfactory results, in which normal development and response were maintained for considerable periods, were ob- tained in a solution containing, besides the salts, 1 per cent dextrose plus 5 g.Liebig's meat extract per liter.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kotte, 51, 52
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Vochting's second approach involved the age-old method of grafting (Fig. 2) or transplantation (1892, 330, 1894, 331) and merely confirmed what had been known from time immemorial, that no matter what the environ- ment or host into which a scion was transplanted, it always developed in a given pattern which was fixed by the species from which it came.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1892]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [330]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [1894]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [331]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Nor have the attempts at a synthesis of a nutrient, led by Dr. and Mrs. Warren H. Lewis (Figs. 7 , 8) in this country and Dr. A. H. Drew in England been much more successful in eliminating the unknowns”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Baker, 1936, 234
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Drew, 1922, 145
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites M. R. and W. H. Lewis, 1911, 149-151
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Not only was the developmental pattern fixed, but the physiological behavior was also fixed by the spe- cies and could not be altered by contact with or even dependence on the tissues of another species (Vochting, 1894, 331).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Vochting, 1894, 331
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 101
- It may state two separate claims as one. 127
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“White (1932, 89) and Moebius (1922, 105) have attempted to grow immature ovules and Tukey (1937, 114) and Borger (1926, 92) attempted to grow excised placental tissue without marked success.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites White, 1932 source
- Not matchedcites Moebius, 1922
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Disputedcites Tukey, 1937 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Tukey did culture excised peach carpel tissue, but the paper reports the opposite of 'without marked success.' In section 3, 'Placental Region of the Inner Wall of the Carpel,' it calls these the most favorable responses and says the tissue proliferated to many times its original size in 12 instances. This verdict concerns the claim about Tukey, not the separately cited authors. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Blood plasma and embryo juice are organic complexes of unknown constitution, and such attempts as have been made to elucidate their makeup have not been especially successful”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Baker, 1929, 233 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The introduction (p. 163) says the factors in plasma-and-embryo-juice medium were not fully known and describes efforts to identify the substances needed for growth. It also reports identifying growth-promoting components of embryo juice, so it does not establish that attempts to elucidate the makeup of both plasma and embryo juice were generally unsuccessful, or characterize both as organic complexes of unknown constitution. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Could not verifycites Baker and Carrel, 1925, 195 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The experimental-methods passage (pp. 143–145) uses plasma and embryonic tissue juice as culture-medium ingredients, while the discussion (pp. 152–153) says further work is needed to identify the inhibiting serum lipoid. Neither passage characterizes both materials as complexes of unknown constitution or assesses whether attempts to determine their makeup have been successful. Searches for those descriptions found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)
- Not matchedcites Carrel and Baker, 1926, 191
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Knudson (Knudson, 1916, 168, 1919, 100 ; Knudson and Smith, 1919, 169), simultaneously and inde- pendently carried out similar work with compar- able results (Robbins, 1922, 57).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Knudson, 1916
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Knudson, 1919 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “OT-CAP CELLS” (page unavailable), Knudson reports experiments showing that detached root-cap cells remained alive for many days, supporting that he carried out related work. Our copy does not discuss Kotte or establish that the work was simultaneous, independent, or produced comparable results. (LLM, conf=0.78)
- Not matchedcites Knudson and Smith, 1919
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“All of the tissues of young ovaries are likewise meristematic as are some of those of more mature ovaries (Tukey, 1937, 114).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Tukey, 1937, 114 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The sections on the micropylar integuments and placental region report cell multiplication or proliferation in selected tissues of developing peach ovaries; the section on entire integuments reports new cells at a later stage. These observations support the point that some tissues retain growth potential, but the paper does not establish that all tissues of young ovaries are meristematic or generalize the finding beyond peach. Page numbers are not supplied in our copy's passages. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Bonner has had some success with tissue cultures of this material (Bonner, 1936, Pi) (Fig. 35).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Bonner, 1936, Pi source
The paper describes parenchymous tissue lining the cups exposed when young bean pods are split, then reports that tissue pieces removed from bean pods grew in culture with bean extract. Its concluding discussion calls these cultures a closer approach to true plant tissue cultures, while noting that they could not yet be subcultured indefinitely. Page numbers are not supplied in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A half century elapsed between its formulation and the first well-organized experimental study of the question.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“He found”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1878]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [329]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [1884]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Smith in 1907, 325, Bobilioff- Preisser in 1917, 90, Lamprecht in 1918, 102, 103, Thielman in 1924, 111, and 1925, 112, 113, Borger, 92, and Czech, 93, in 1926, Kunkel, 101, and Prat, 451, in 1927, tJlehla, 115, and Kemmer, 99, in 1928, Pfeiffer, 107, and Scheitterer, 109, in 1931, five of them students of Haberlandt, all attempted to grow cells of mature type”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Smith in 1907, 325
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Bobilioff-Preisser in 1917, 90
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Lamprecht in 1918, 102, 103
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Kiister, in 1928, 20, con- sidered the problem hopeless (”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kiister, in 1928, 20
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Fibro- blasts, when grown in culture, not only always maintained their characters as fibroblasts, but retained growth rates which were characteristic of the particular tissues or organs from which they had been excised”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Parker, 1931, 421
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [1932]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [422]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [423]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [424]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [1933]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [425]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [426]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Burrows studied with Harrison, subsequently joined Carrel, and to- gether these two established the present-day method of cultivating excised animal tissues in a nutrient made up of blood plasma and embryo juice or their equivalents (Burrows, 1910, 117, 118, 1911, 119; Carrel, 1911, 120, 1912, 121-125, 1913, 190; Carrel and Burrows, 1910, 128).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Burrows, 1910, 117
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Carrel, 1911, 120
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Carrel and Burrows, 1910, 128
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Rechinger, in 1893, 108, seems to have been the first to investigate experimentally the”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Rechinger, 1893, 108
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Epithelial cells also continued true to type”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ebeling, 1924, 389
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Ebeling and Fischer, 1922, 391
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Fischer, 1922, 403, 404
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Harrison (Fig. 6) in 1907 succeeded in settling an old controversy by just the methods suggested by Haberlandt, when he cultivated the neuroblast of the frog in clotted lymph (1907, 131, 1908, 132, 1910, 414).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1907]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [131]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [1908]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [132]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [1910]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [414]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the nutrient evaporates rapidly with consequent alteration in its solute concentration so that the cultures must be transferred at frequent intervals”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The liquid surface is still small enough in proportion to the volume to reduce evaporation to a considerable extent, yet the depth of liquid is small enough to permit some degree of aeration without special precautions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eoot cultures in tubes must be watched to see that the tips do not turn upward when the culture reaches a length greater than the diameter of the tube.Otherwise, with continued growth the tip may be forced out into the air where it will no longer grow satisfactorily.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This method has given considerable promise, but a reliable technique for obtaining duplicable re- sults has not yet been perfected.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In choosing tips for inocula- tion, it will be noted that occasionally a root which does not visibly differ from the others will nevertheless sink to the bottom of the flask instead of floating at the surface.Such tips should not be used, as experience has shown that they are regularly retarded in their development.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These are large enough to permit a good deal of manipula- tion of cultures and to provide a large volume of nutrient which is only slowly altered by the metab- olism of the tissues.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The time required for complete sterilization will vary considerably with the species of seed, as will the amount of injury to the seedling which usually results.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Test tubes require much less space and nutrient but permit only a very limited amount of manipulation.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Dakin solution (Parker, 1938, 26) is also good.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Parker, 1938, 26
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Cultures are apparently for the most part relatively insensitive to light and can be placed either in darkness or in diffuse light (Robbins and Maneval, 1924, 258; White, 1932, 63, 1937, 265; Malyschev, 1932, 53, 54; Gautheret, 1935, 15).”
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“It does not, however, appear to be the case with cultures of excised roots (Bobbins and Bart- ley, 1937, 170; Bobbins and Schmidt, 1938, 60, 1939, 61; Bobbins and V. B. White, 1936, 62; Delarge, 1938, 280, 1939, 281).Sister cultures, placed under supposedly identical conditions, may behave in markedly different manners.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bobbins and Bartley, 1937, 170
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Bobbins and Schmidt, 1938, 60
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Delarge, 1938, 280
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pro- liferation from very young tissues will take place in all parts, while from older tissues only the re- gion of the provascular strands will proliferate (Fig. 17).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Under ideal conditions, root cultures set up as described above will begin to grow almost immediately and will increase 3 to 4 mm. in length in the first 24 hours.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This tissue can, of course, be most easily removed from stems of succulent indi- viduals.Rapidly growing tips of tobacco, squash, sunflower, and similar plants make excellent mate- rial.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cultures from young carrot roots, potato tubers, kohl-rabi, and other fleshy, only partially differentiated members can be made in a similar fashion.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Quartz covers are much too expensive for routine work.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Very young seed pri- mordia are made up entirely of meristematic cells and are easily removed with little danger of con- tamination and a minimum of trauma (White, 1932, 89 ; Moebius, 1928, 105; Molliard, 1921, 106).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites White, 1932, 89 source
- Not matchedcites Moebius, 1928, 105
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Molliard, 1921, 106
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Flask cultures of the type described above have great flexibility and permit considerable freedom of manipulation.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“They should never be exposed for long periods to direct light as they are extremely sen- sitive to high temperature and to temperature changes and could easily become overheated (White, 1932(White, , 63, 1937, 265) , 265) .”
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pyrex covers, if available, would obviate this difficulty, but these have not yet been successfully manufactured.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All covers now available have objec- tionable features.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This behavior makes it clear that the rate of growth of a branch (and presumably of the main axis as well) is not deter- mined by the number of branches present and that the retardation of growth rate after the 5th day is not entirely due to diversion of nutrient mate- rials to newly formed branches.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Gautheret's most successful cultures were of cambium from Salix capraea (Gautheret, 1935, 15, 1937, 68, 1938, 69 .The growth obtained is of a loose, fungoid character and in general de- velops rather slowly”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gautheret, 1935, 15
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Gautheret, 1937, 68
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Gautheret, 1938, 69
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They do, however, occupy a good deal of space”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To perform this operation on the cambium of small woody stems would be almost impossible.It can, however, be successfully carried out on large trees.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The average growth rate throughout the year, of cultures grown in the laboratory without special temperature control, is about 7 to 8 mm. per cul- ture per day, being greater than this in summer and less in winter (Fig. 26).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They are shallow enough and have wide enough mouths that considerable dissection and other manipulation can be practiced on the cultures without removing them from the tube.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They can be handled easily and do not readily become contaminated.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tubercles of white or green callus are formed on the uppermost cut surface.It usually requires 10 days or 2 weeks for these to attain a sufficient size to justify further division.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tubes 25 X 150 mm.without lip and charged with 10 ml. of nutrient, have proved to be a fairly satisfactory compromise between the advantages and disad- vantages of the test tube and the Erlenmeyer flask.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hanging-drop cultures, of course, re- quire very minute amounts of both tissues and nutrients.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A high yield of sound aseptic root- lets cannot be expected under these exacting con- ditions, but they can be obtained with some patience.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The range between optimum and maximum is, however, very narrow and a 5° rise above these temperatures, if maintained for very long, will kill the cultures (Fig. 44).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Callus cultures grow much more slowly than do root cultures, so that a greater time, usually about a month, must be allowed between the setting up of stocks and their actual utilization.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Root tips of wheat have an optimum temperature of about 27° (White, 1932, 63), tomato nearer 30° (White, 1937, 265).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The maximum increment rate is reached on the fifth day.best time for subculturing.A one-week culture period has been chosen as best for routine work.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cultures begin to branch on about the 3rd day and may have as many as 30 branches by the end of a week.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“cultures grown in a glycine-thiamin nutrient give results which, at their best, are superior to the best results obtained in a yeast nutrient, yet in a gly- cine-thiamin nutrient they appear to be far more sensitive to temperature changes than in a yeast nutrient, so that at suboptimal or supraoptimal temperatures the relations between growth rates in these two nutrients may be just reversed”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites White, unpublished
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“yet, once a root has grown long enough in a liquid nutrient to curve around the flask some- what, it has built up a bilateral symmetry which should make a reaction to gravity possible.This does not take place.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the series presented in the last table, the lengths at the end of a week in the control nutrient varied between 37 and 178 mm., with an average of 131 mm.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“differences of 31 per cent and over (Nos.6, 7, and 9) are highly significant (odds of more than 20:1 against the results being due to chance”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“showing plant tissue with a central vascular strand flanked both above and below by animal cells which have in many cases penetrated into the intercellular spaces, x 400.”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were 492 branches (an unusually large number) with a total length of 2804 mm.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They indicate that measurements made by an observer on a single set of roots will vary from measurement to mea- surement by somewhat less than 2 per cent but give no indication of the deviation from the true length.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Further study showed that this flow was not continuous but had a diurnal rhythm and that it was maintained even when opposed by very great external pressures (Fig. 53) (White, 1938, 267-269).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites White, 1938, 267-269
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The method used in making measurements is extremely simple (Fig. 40).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This method easily becomes cumbersome or unreliable, or both.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They can be made with a fair degree of accuracy, the error in good hands prob- ably amounting to about 5 per cent plus or minus the true value.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dry weight determinations are tedious and time-con- suming, although less so than amino-nitrogen determinations.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Estimation of dry weight has been frequently used as a measure of increase of the total material in a culture.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The plant tissue contains many gianl cells at the margin and some vascular strands luit no meristematic areas, indicating that, while cell division had stopped, Cell enlargement and maturation had proceeded for some time after insertion of the culture in the eve.”
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is recognized that this method may err in making no distinction between cell migration and cell increase and in taking no account of changes in thickness of the cultures.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Linear measure- ments can be made with a mean error of 6 to 8 per cent, an accuracy comparable to that obtainable in making dry weight determinations.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The actual measurement of amino-nitrogen, while slow and tedious, is not especially difficult.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Plant tissue cultures may be measured by deter- mining protein nitrogen, dry weight, respiration intensity, area, volume, and doubtless other char- acteristics.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“most cells of a plant are not bathed in any free, complete nutrient medium.The xylem sap lacks many of the organic constituents needed to maintain life.The phloem sap is in direct contact with only a very few specialized cells.”
- Also stated in: § Most plant cells must obtain a large part of their nutriment by diffusion through neighbor- ing cells. · plain
“Most plant cells must obtain a large part of their nutriment by diffusion through neighbor- ing cells.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Most plant cells must obtain a large part of their nutriment by diffusion through neighbor- ing cells. · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“one of the most promising techniques for arriving at such a decision lies in the segrega- tion of cells, tissues, and organs from the associated members of the body and their maintenance and study as isolated units, under as nearly opti- mal and as fully controlled conditions as possible.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is no”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Schleiden (1838, 27) and Schwann (1839, 29), who formulated the concept of cellular totipotency, and Virchow (1858, 433), who popularized that concept, made no attempt to put it to experimental test.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schleiden (1838, 27)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Schwann (1839, 29)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Virchow (1858, 433)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“most plant cells, with rare exceptions, are surrounded by a rigid pellicle.This prevents the cells from seeking and engulfing food, thus greatly restricting the forms of food which they can use.It prevents their adhering satisfactorily to any solid substratum.And, since excision involves rupturing this pellicle and exposing the protoplast naked to the surrounding medium”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is clear that a decision between these two alterna- tive hypotheses is essential to any valid notion of the origin of form and function.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These re- gions are: the terminal growing points of roots and stems, the lateral meristems designated as cambiums and phellogens, and intercalary meri- stems in the procambial region, at the base of the internodes in grasses and lianes and at the base of some leaves or, as in Camptosorus, near the tips of leaves.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“But in every series, there set in a gradual diminution in growth rate and all cultures were ultimately lost.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The cell has come to be looked upon as a more or less fortuitous structural element without any fundamental importance except as one means out of several by which the integrations of the whole may be attained.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The period 1934 to 1939 was one of rapid expansion of the field, of perfecting the nutrients and culture con- ditions, and of gradual establishment of the tech- nique on a firm basis.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But in this work he used no nutrient solutions,”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“Schmucker, in 1929, 110, reported that he had suc- cessfully grown individual leaf-mesophyll cells of Bocconia in a fluid prepared from a filtered ex- tract of Bocconia leaves.Details were appar- ently never published, the work has not been verified by any later worker, and the result is so at variance with all other recorded experiments that its correctness is to be doubted.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schmucker, 1929, 110
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Scheitterer (1931, 109) had slight success with the intercalary meristem of grasses, and none of those of lianes have been cultivated although they should be fairly easy to work with.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Scheitterer, 1931
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The work was well planned, excellently carried out, and, as we can now see, of consider- able promise, but no subcultures were attempted, Haberlandt apparently overlooked its importance, and no attempt seems to have been made to follow it up.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They differentiate into normal organs ; if they become successfully estab- lished, they develop roots and subsequently be- have as entire plants.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Carrel and Burrows ' method of cultivating ani- mal cells in a blood-plasma embryo-juice nutrient, while relatively simple and easily duplicable, has not led to any exact knowledge of the nutrient requirements of such cells and tissues.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the early years of the present century, Haberlandt (1902,98) (Fig. 5) set forth the principle frankly and lucidly in the words that I have placed at the head of Chapter II.He then proceeded methodically to fill the gap in our knowledge, the existence of which he had called to our attention.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Haberlandt (1902,98)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Rob- bins (1922, 177) and his colleague, Maneval (Robbins and Maneval, 1923, 59, 1924, 258) carried their work somewhat further than did Kotte and, by using subcultures, succeeded in maintaining cultures for some 20 weeks.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Robbins, 1922
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Robbins and Maneval, 1923
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Robbins and Maneval, 1924 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“1900-1922-The idea of tissue cultures was outlined for the first time in its broad aspects by Haberlandt in 1902 and was first put into practice, with animal tissues, by Harrison in 1907 and by Burrows and Carrel in 1910.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Haberlandt, 1902
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Harrison, 1907
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Burrows and Carrel, 1910
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Roots can be counted on to grow as roots, but means of inducing them to develop leaves have, with rare exceptions (especially among the Compositae) (Fig. 16), not yet been found.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This impression has been so emphasized by much recent biological work that the older concept of the cell as an”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Similar conclusions may be drawn from experiments with animal materials (Figs. 3, 4).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Figs. 3, 4
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The transplantation experiments demonstrated the restrictions which species places on the potencies of a cell.The dis- section experiments demonstrated the essential totipotency of the cell within these species limitations.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, even in the embryo there is the beginning of an apparent loss of totipotency, a segregation of function which is marked in the root, somewhat less in hypocotyl and cotyledon, and lacking in epicotyl and plumule.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results conveyed the impression that somewhere in the ontogeny of the individual animal the potential capacities of the cells had been segregated, only”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“If, moreover, the cambium is taken from peren- nial plants having secondary thickening, and for this purpose trees of fairly good size offer fewer mechanical difficulties than do smaller plants, and is placed on a nutrient, a similar proliferation occurs, the product of which can be treated in the same manner (Gautheret, 1934, 67, 1935, 15, 1937, 68, 1938, 69, 70, 1939, 71, 72, 1940, 73).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gautheret, 1934
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Gautheret, 1935
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Gautheret, 1937
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“1922-1934-The method as outlined by Kotte and Robbins was still far from fully successful, and the period from 1922 to 1934 was again one of largely unsuccessful attempts in a great many different directions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and others have grown ex- cised embryos of more or less advanced stages of development, but egg cells have apparently not yet been cultured.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This was capped in 1939 by White's, Nobecourt's, and Gautheret 's indepen- dent demonstration of the possibility of growing undifferentiated tissues for unlimited periods and by White's demonstration of experimental control of differentiation in such cultures.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites White, 1939 source
- Not matchedcites Nobecourt, 1939
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Gautheret, 1939
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“such cultures have not proved of great value to the tissue culture field and have not been pushed very far.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The cultivation of animal tissues is still an empirical science.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Plant meristems can, for the most part, be clas- sified in three main groups, leaving a rather large residue of those more difficult to classify.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The medullary ray parenchyma, phloem parenchyma, pith cells in general, pericycle and endodermis, and cortical parenchyma are known to retain their meriste- matic capacity throughout most of the life of the plant (tTlehla, 1928, 115; MacDougal, 1926, 307; MacDougal and Shreve, 1924, 445; Sinnott and Bloch, 1941, 324).”
What the sources say
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“He succeded in growing cambium tissues for considerable periods (Gautheret, 1934, 67, 1935, 15, 1937, 68, 1938, 69, 70, 1939, 71, 72, 1940, 73), in producing in vitro grafts (1935,15,1937,16), and in learning a great deal about the nutrient require- ments of such tissues.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gautheret, 1934
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Gautheret, 1935
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Gautheret, 1937
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Haberlandt boldly took his point of departure directly from the cell theory and assumed that down to the cell level there were no limits of divisibility.He, therefore, chose to work with single cells”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Haberlandt (1902,98)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Haberlandt's influence, while tending to orient the subject in a fundamentally unfruitful direction, nevertheless did keep interest in the field alive.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There thus still seems to be much evidence to sup- port Haberlandt's original concept and to lend support to the hope that, while excised plant cells have not yet been grown in vitro with the facility which Haberlandt appears to have anticipated, they will eventually be so grown.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“while the epicotyl and plumule tend to form roots and develop into normal plants without serious difficulty.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There nevertheless remains much indisputable evidence which seems to point to the importance of the cell as a physiological entity and to its fun- damental totipotency.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“1934-1939 In 1934 White and Gautheret gave a new impetus and orientation to the subject, White by demon- strating the possibility of growing isolated roots for unlimited periods in vitro, Gautheret by demonstrating the possibility of obtaining in vitro growth of fragments of cambium.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites White, 1934 source
- Not matchedcites Gautheret, 1934
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The plumule taken from the em- bryo is a stem tip and cultures of this region, taken from no matter what age of plant, behave in much the same way.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“These studies led in 1934 to the first prolonged cultivation of excised roots (White, 1934, 65), to the development of satisfactory synthetic culture media in 1937 (White, 1937, 141, 143, 144, 180, 181, 231, 1939, 182, 1940, 172, 173, 232), and to the pro- longed cultivation of undifferentiated plant tis- sues in 1939 (White, 1939, 78).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Apical meristems, particu- larly root tips, have been cultivated extensively and most of the details of technique have been developed through their study.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The pierced slide described in Chapter IV (Fig. 27), in spite of its fragility, offers the best, most easily handled, most widely useful type of slide for hanging-drop cultures.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The difference is probably more apparent than real.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such tubes are especially well adapted for routine callus cultures on agar.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“And quantitative changes can be precisely represented in terms of measurements.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In following the behavior of a root culture, on the other hand, one is dealing with a single branch behaving as an individual, so that the full measure of variability is immediately evident.It is only by taking the average of a large number of such individual cultures that one can get a picture truly comparable to that of the single fungus, bacterial or fibroblast colony.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In other cases, no growth failure may occur in the absence of an external source of thiamin, but thiamin may be recovered in increasing quantities from cultures grown for long periods, showing that the vitamin has been synthesized by the tissues in quantities sufficient to supply their growth requirements (Bonner and Devirian, 1939, 205; Nobecourt, 1940, 252; Mc-Clary, 1940, 248).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bonner and Devirian, 1939, 205
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Nobecourt, 1940, 252
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Mc-Clary, 1940, 248
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It will seldom be possible to carry on all these procedures in a single room with any degree of effectiveness”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The general requirements for a plant tissue culture laboratory are the same as those for any detailed micro-culture work.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such roots can be excised with a minimum of injury since the cross sectional area is small in proportion to the volume of even a comparatively short piece.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The bromine quickly penetrates all crevices in the seed coats, killing most if not all contaminants, yet evaporates completely leaving no traces to affect the seed- lings.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Plant meristems are, for the most part, of three main types.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Growth rate can be measured quite accurately by any of a number of methods (see later), so that it is possible to follow the effects of relatively small differences in environmental conditions and to establish opti- mal ranges for these conditions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They are meristematic for a consid- erable length and consequently can be counted on to grow with fair rapidity.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The entire young flower, and particularly the ovary, is at first meristematic.This function is retained in some tissues for a long time.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Qualitative differences cannot easily be repre- sented except by descriptive-hence subjective means.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That the major role of the carbohydrate is nutritional rather than osmotic is further indicated by the fact that spe- cific carbohydrates, not carbohydrate per se, are required.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Excised root tips have, in fact, served as the ex- perimental material par excellence for the pre- liminary work in developing a tissue and organ culture technique, and practically all of the fun- damental steps in that development have been made first with root tips and only later applied to other tissues.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Roots of clover, Trifolium repens (Fig. 13), on the other hand have a very marked apical dominance so that, even though many branches may be laid down, their increment is greatly retarded as compared with that of the original root and the growth habit is that of a well denned and very attenuate cone.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A technique for such examination is provided in the various sorts of hanging-drop cultures which are impor- tant for this reason, although they require much more work and do not provide the stable nutrient conditions necessary for satisfactory study of nutritional problems.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since it is patently impossible to deal with even hundreds of cultures at a time in abso- lutely uniform conditions of environment, the indi- vidual variability comes into unavoidable promi- nence.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This type of culture is second only to the flask type in im- portance in carrying out plant tissue cultures.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“They are also relatively unstable to heat and cannot be autoclaved with impunity (Thiel- man, 1938, 171).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Thielman, 1938, 171
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Carbohydrates make up from 0.5 per cent to 10 per cent of the mass of nutrients.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such sources of error can be reduced by careful study but can never be completely eliminated.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They serve two main purposes: as sources of energy for the maintenance of the various living processes in the growing tissues, and as osmotic agents.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Plant tissue culture nutrients contain four cate- gories of materials.These are, first, water ; sec- ond, inorganic salts; third, organic constituents; and sometimes, fourth, coagulating agents.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Such roots are, in fact, very sensitive to differences in cultural conditions such as temperature, pH (White, 1932, 63), osmotic value (Bonner and Addicott, 1937, 42), concentra- tion and proportion of nutrient salts (White, 1933, 141, 1937, 143; Bonner and Addicott, 1937, 42), carbohydrate supply (White, 1932, 63, 1940, 172, 173), etc.; this sensitivity manifests itself either in change of growth”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But with plant cultures which are made in unbuffered solutions having an optimal pH of about 5.4, and in which a reaction above 6.0 may be very injurious, this tendency may be quite serious in its effects.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increase of living material, as dis- tinct from non-living secretions, is therefore of the greatest importance.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other tissues, such as young ovaries, placental tissues, etc., have been studied to a lesser degree and have in some cases proved useful for special purposes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Intercalary meri- stems such as cambium have also been successfully grown, as undifferentiated masses or with their differentiation experimentally controlled.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the mustard, Brassica nigra, apical dominance is extremely weak; as fast as branches are laid down, they grow with a vigor equal to that of the parent root so that an open network of rootlets is formed without definite outlines.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Flask cultures and tube cultures are suitable for experiments in which gross increase and habit of growth are the features of chief interest”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But when a sufficient number of replications is provided, the results can be counted on to be, under like conditions, similar from one test to another and, after properly correcting for regular seasonal differ- ences (see later), they will give comparable results from year to year and from season to season.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is, however, a cumulative or catalytic process, since any given unit of protoplasm may produce 1 or 10 or 100 units of carbohydrate without itself necessarily either in- creasing or decreasing in amount.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The tissue culture technique has recently per- mitted the transfer of one problem group already mentioned, the “crown gall problem,” from the field of pathology to that of experimental morphogenesis with extremely important implications.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it stands today is hardly usable for the latter, for the obvious reason that the basic nutrient for tissues is also an excellent nutrient for many of these organisms.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The basic nutrient for tissues is also an excellent nutrient for many pathogens.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The tissue culture technique has thus permitted the experimental manipulation of crown gall tissues free of the original pathogen and the study of the factors involved in the origin of the tumefacient property of the cells themselves.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The gradual resorption of starch from the plastids in hanging- drop cultures of Stellaria media has been studied in this way (Fig. 54) (White, 1933, 116).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites White, 1933, 116
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the branches formed are ignored, this measurement will then be somewhat beloiv the true value as measured by dry-weight or ammo-nitro- gen methods, but will never, on the average, exceed the true value.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The behavior of localized root cells towards indole acetic acid with the formation of scattered necrotic lesions produced by the bursting of individual cells (plasmoptysis) has likewise been studied (Fig. 51) (White, unpublished).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites White, unpublished
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In- terpretation involves the integration of many sorts of information which only the person who actually handles the cultures can have available.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Increase in carbohydrate may also give a measure of the activity of the protoplasm.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It has subsequently come to be looked upon as a true morphogenetic hormone, since it seems to induce the differentiation of roots from tissues that ordinarily rarely, if ever, pro- duce roots (Went, 1929, 380 ; Bouillenne et Went, 1933, 277 ; Thimann and Went, 1934, 229 ; Laibach, 1935, 218; Thimann and Koepfli, 1935, 376; Cooper, 1935, 345, 1936, 346; Zimmerman et al., 1933, 384, 1935, 385, 386),”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Went, 1929, 380
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Thimann and Went, 1934, 229
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cooper, 1935, 345, 1936, 346 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A considerable amount of older tissue must be included in every explant along with the usual meristem, since the meristems themselves are often virus-free.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The best that can be done is to make such measurements on a series of aliquots, using sufficient numbers so that the results will truly represent the characteristics of the whole series.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Priestley ( 1928, 314, 1930, 315, Pearsall and Priestley, 1923, 313) attributes the formation of cambium in radial plant bodies to a radially distributed hydrogen -ion gradient.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Priestley ( 1928, 314, 1930, 315, Pearsall and Priestley, 1923, 313)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Bobbins has already studied the growth behavior of excised roots from certain hybrid tomatoes, compared with that of roots from the two inbred parents (1941,318).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bobbins (1941,318)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With callus cultures none of these methods is fully satisfac- tory and a subjective criterion can scarcely be avoided.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Bacteria, molds, and viruses have been cultivated on growing isolated plant organs as hosts and the host behavior studied.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These reactions can be measured in terms of mass increase, differentia- tion, level of respiratory activity, enzyme or water secretion, tropistic bending, and many other sorts of behavior.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All these responses are attributed to the same substance.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Tissues isolated from secondary or metastatic crown gall tumors have been grown in tissue cul- ture (Fig. 19).Here they maintained a rapid, disorganized type of growth (Fig. 67) which ex- pressed itself, upon reimplantation into healthy hosts, in the production of new tumors.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites White and Braun, 1941, 335, 1942, 336, 337
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Braun and White, 1942, 436
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The number of problems which have been attacked to date by means of this technique is not large.But the number which it should be possible to attack by this means is legion.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mass increase has been used in measuring cul- tures' behavior towards nutrient variables, vita- mins, temperature and light changes, and so on.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the use of percentages may be objected to on the grounds that it involves a subjective choice of a standard, it is the only way in which non-simultaneous experiments can be compared and has proved very satisfactory as a method of presenting results.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Repeated measurements can be made on each growing culture at any desired interval, growth curves can be set up, and subcultures can be made from those roots which show, over an extended period, any desired type of behavior.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By aliquot titration, it is pos- sible to follow the rate of multiplication of the virus as a function of host-tissue multiplication (Fig. 59) and to show that the two rates are inde- pendent of one another.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as if all the potassium present in the orig- inal explant was being retained in the apical meri- stem so that none was available for the formation of branch primordia.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But it is as yet quite unknown which of all these gradients -of pH, of redox-potential, of electrostatic poten- tial, of hydrostatic potential, and of tendency to differentiate-is primary and which secondary.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, this error is always a negative one, the measurements will (aside from errors of manipu- lation) always be minimal ones, with the result that every experiment recorded in this way is slightly weighted against the experimenter.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Kotte (1922, 52) and Fiedler (1936, 45) have both made cursory observations on geo- tropic response of roots grown in an agar substratum and report normal curvature.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kotte (1922, 52)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Fiedler (1936, 45)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nothing has been done in the study of photo- synthetic activity using plant tissue cultures.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Interestingly enough, no method has yet been found for inoculating such cultures (they must be isolated from systemically infected plants), so that there is no danger of a virus-bearing culture, once established, ever becoming contaminated with another virus (White, 1934, 438).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites White, 1934, 438 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“White (1939, 78) Gautheret (1938, 283, 284) and Gioelli (1937, 290) have made a few similar studies with callus cultures.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites White (1939, 78) source
- Not matchedcites Gautheret (1938, 283, 284)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Gioelli (1937, 290)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The cross sectional area is thus a constant and can be ignored in comparing measurements, so that length alone becomes an accurate measure of volume and weight.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“How this is to be done is a matter of personal inclination and cannot be presented in any hand- book.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was suggested at the beginning of this volume that the technique of cultivating excised tissues had its chief raison d'etre and gave its greatest promise in the study of the origins of form and function, that is, in problems of morphogenesis.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Root cultures deprived of potassium continue to grow in length with unimpaired vigor but become pro- gressively more and more slender and fail to branch”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites White, in press
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Roots normally do not possess such activity and that of callus cultures is probably low so that they do not appear likely to prove very useful in this respect.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Omission of iodine from the nutrient likewise leaves the culture quantitatively unimpaired but results in a spasmodic growth, the tips dying after 3 or 4 days and a series of new branches developing, giving a picture quite differ- ent from that produced by potassium deficiency”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites White, in press
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A growing, undifferen- tiated mass of cells, such as a callus culture, or a mass characterized by a definite but limited degree of differentiation, such as an excised root, should not only possess fewer of these internal variables but should permit a more rigorous control of the external variables as well.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Stanley (1938, 437) has used such cultures as a source of virus in order to demonstrate the essential identity of the chemis- try of virus protein produced in these chlorophyll- free tissues and of that derived from the usual leaf tissues with their high chlorophyll content and activity.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Stanley (1938, 437) source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The existence of a rhythmic secretion was verified by Grossenbacher (1938, 243, 1939, 244), and the unidirectional character of the flow and the magnitude of the force were verified by Rosene (1937,259,1941,260).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Grossenbacher (1938, 243, 1939, 244)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Rosene (1937,259,1941,260)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since all cultures react on the average in approximately the same way and to the same extent to most variables in the environment, this difficulty can be obviated by setting up a control in each series, treating this control always as the norm, and comparing all”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: All cultures react on average in approximately the same way and to the same extent to most variables in the environment.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In order that experiments carried out at different times may be compared, it is desirable to express results in terms of percentages of a control maintained under as nearly as possible standardized con- ditions.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With root cultures linear increment has been found to be a satisfactory criterion of growth which is easily and accurately obtained, yet does not involve destruction of the tissue studied.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is, however, a third method which does not involve destruction of the tissue, permits consecutive measurements, and in practiced hands is at least as accurate as is the measurement of dry weights.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The cell is theoretically the ultimate unit of structure in living organisms.
“Since the cell is theoretically the ultimate unit of structure in liv- ing organisms, the question of the origin of form and function in living beings may be stated thus”
The paper relies on this without support.
No mechanism is known by which segregation or loss of totipotency can take place.
“No mechanism is known by which such segregation or loss can take place, yet it so often appears to have taken place that this alternative hypothesis has today many adherents.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cellular totipotency is a fundamental property of plant cells.
“there can be no question about its fundamental totipotency”
The paper relies on this without support.
The general requirements for a plant tissue culture laboratory are the same as those for any detailed micro-culture work.
“The gen- eral requirements for a plant tissue culture lab- oratory are the same as those for any detailed micro-culture work”
The paper relies on this without support.
Sharing a media room with bacteriologists, mycologists, etc., involves definite risks of contaminations, both biological and chemical.
“since sharing it with bacteriologists, mycologists, etc., involves definite risks of contaminations, both biological and chemical.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Molds are likely to grow in cotton plugs and ultimately penetrate to the nutrient if plugged flasks are not covered.
“else molds are likely to grow in the plugs and ultimately penetrate to the nutrient”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cotton plugs char and bits of charred cotton falling into flasks of nutrient may vitiate the results of nutrition experiments.
“Cotton plugs char, and bits of charred cotton falling into flasks of nutrient may vitiate the results of nutrition experiments.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Flasks which are properly handled and plugged and are capped to keep out dust and water of condensation will remain sterile for months without flaming.
“Flasks which are properly handled and plugged and are capped to keep out dust and water of condensation will remain sterile for months without flaming.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Instruments can be adequately sterilized in boiling water.
“Instruments can be ade- quately sterilized in boiling water.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Seeds contained in very small fruits, in drupes or achenes, or the seeds of Gymnosperms cannot be obtained in a uniformly aseptic condition by mechanical manipulation alone.
“Seeds contained in very small fruits, in drupes or achenes, or the seeds of Gymnosperms cannot be obtained in a uniformly aseptic condition by mechanical manipulation alone.”
The paper relies on this without support.
When seeds are sown on a semi-solid substratum such as agar, any contaminant present on one seed will not easily spread to another.
“If sown on a semi-solid substratum such as agar, several seeds can be placed in each receptacle since any contaminant which may be present on one seed will not easily spread to another.”
The paper relies on this without support.
True science rests upon quantitative representations.
“True science rests upon quantitative representa- tions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Living organisms, particularly plant materials incapable of autonomous movement, give evidence of their reactions to changes in environment chiefly by changes in character or velocity of growth.
“Living organisms, particularly those which, like most plant materials, are incapable of autonomous movement, give evidence of their reactions to changes in environment chiefly by changes in char- acter or velocity of growth.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Living materials are chiefly proteins.
“These living materials are chiefly proteins.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Carbohydrates and fats and non-protein nitrogenous materials are largely constituents that can be removed without destroying the organism's capacity to live.
“The carbohydrates and fats and the nitrogenous materials of non-protein character are largely constituents which can be removed without destroying the organism's ca- pacity to live.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The significance of any piece of scientific work rests primarily on the ability to express results in quantitative terms and the reliability of these terms themselves.
“The significance of any piece of scientific work rests primarily on the ability to express results in quantitative terms and the reliability of these terms themselves.”
The paper relies on this without support.
All cultures react on average in approximately the same way and to the same extent to most variables in the environment.
“Since all cultures react on the average in approximately the same way and to the same extent to most variables in the environment”
The paper relies on this without support.
Varietal differences or uncontrolled seasonal variables in the environment may have as great or greater effects on growth rates than do experimental variables.
“the ef- fects of varietal differences or of uncontrolled seasonal variables in the environment may have as great or greater effects on growth rates than do the experimental variables.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The basic nutrient for tissues is also an excellent nutrient for many pathogens.
“for the obvious reason that the basic nutrient for tissues is also an excellent nutrient for many of these organisms.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Student of the vitamin requirements of plants.
“the lateral meristems designated as cambiums and phellogens, and intercalary meri- stems in the procambial region”
§ Student of the vitamin requirements of plants.
“Intercalary meri- stems such as cambium have also been successfully grown”
Citations
Cites
Gey, G. O., & Gey, M. K. (1936) · The American Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1158/ajc.1936.45 · Cited by 600
THE ESSENTIALITY OF CERTAIN ELEMENTS IN MINUTE QUANTITY FOR PLANTS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO COPPER
Arnon, D. I., & Stout, P. R. (1939) · PLANT PHYSIOLOGY · doi:10.1104/pp.14.2.371 · Cited by 528
GENERAL NATURE OF THE PROCESS OF SALT ACCUMULATION BY ROOTS WITH DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
Hoagland, D. R., & Broyer, T. C. (1936) · PLANT PHYSIOLOGY · doi:10.1104/pp.11.3.471 · Cited by 403
POTENTIALLY UNLIMITED GROWTH OF EXCISED TOMATO ROOT TIPS IN A LIQUID MEDIUM
White, P. R. (1934) · Plant Physiology · doi:10.1104/pp.9.3.585 · Cited by 338
Self-citationPhotoperiodism in Relation to Hormones as Factors in Floral Initiation and Development
HAMNER, K. C., & Bonner, J. (1938) · Botanical Gazette · doi:10.1086/334793 · Cited by 268
POTENTIALLY UNLIMITED GROWTH OF EXCISED PLANT CALLUS IN AN ARTIFICIAL NUTRIENT
White, P. R. (1939) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1939.tb12867.x · Cited by 239
Self-citationSPECIFIC FACTORS OTHER THAN AUXIN AFFECTING GROWTH AND ROOT FORMATION
Went, F. W. (1938) · PLANT PHYSIOLOGY · doi:10.1104/pp.13.1.55 · Cited by 193
La culture des tissus végétaux
Nobécourt, P. (1957) · Bulletin de la Société Botanique de France · doi:10.1080/00378941.1957.10835155 · Cited by 185
Inducement of Fruit Development by Growth-Promoting Chemicals
Gustafson, F. G. (1936) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.22.11.628 · Cited by 182
On the Physiology of the Formation of Nodules on Legume Roots
Thimann, K. V. (1936) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.22.8.511 · Cited by 167
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Borger, H. 1926. Verfahren pflanzlicher Gewebeziichtung. (Nachtrag zur: Erdmann, Rh. Gewebeziichtung.) Handb. norm. path. Physiol., Band 14, l.Halfte: 1000-1002. Springer, Berlin.
- Ephrussi, B. 1932. La culture des tissus. pp. 233.
- 1930. Praktikum der Gewebepflege oder Explan- tation besonders der Gewebeziiehtung. Ed. 2. Springer, Berlin.
- Gautheret, R. 1935. Kecherches sur la culture des tissus vegetaux: Essais de culture de quelques tissus me>i- stSmatiques. These, Univ. Paris, pp. 279.
- 1937. La culture des tissus vegetaux. Son 6tat actuel, comparaison avec la culture des tissus animaux. Actuality sci. industrielles. pp. 66. Hermann, Paris.
- Lewis, W. H., and Lewis, M. R. 1924. Behavior of cells in tissue cultures. (In: Cowdry, General cytology, Univ. Chicago Press, pp. 385-447.)
- Loeb, J. 1916. The organism as a whole, pp. 379. G. P. Putnam's Son, New York.
- 1924. Regeneration from a physicochemical view point, pp. 143. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York.
- 1939. Plant organ and tissue physiology, as ex- emplified in growing isolated roots. Papers presented before Am. Sci. Teachers Assoc, A.A.A.S., December, . 1938. pp. 15-22.
- Galligar, G. C. 1936. Influence of certain organic sub- stances upon the growth behaviour of excised root tips. Trans. Illinois Acad. Sci. 29 : 59-68. 167. . 1938. Correlation between growth of excised root tips and types of food stored in the seed. Plant Physiol. 13: 599-609. 168. Knudson, L. 1916. Influence of certain carbohydrates on green plants. Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp. Sta. Memoir 9. pp. 75. 169. , and Smith, E. S. 1919. Secretion of amylase by plant roots. Bot. Gaz. 68: 460-466. 170. Bobbins, W. J., and Bartley, M. A. 1937. Use of dextrose by excised tomato roots. Science 86: 290-291. 171.
- Delarge, L. 1938. Cultures de meristemes radiculaires in vitro. Les variations individuelles et leur signification pbysiologiques. Bull. soc. roy. bot. belg. 71: 73-88. 281. . 1939. Cultures de meristemes radiculaires in vitro. Les milieux reputes complets et les variations indi- viduelles. Bull. soc. roy. bot. belg. 71 : 145-162. 282. Gautheret, R. 1937. Sur la migration cellulaire dans les cultures d'organes et de tissus vegetaux. C. r. soc. biol., Paris, 124: 632-634. 283. . 1938. Caracteres anatomiques de fragments de tubercules de carotte cultives in vitro. C. r. soc. biol., Paris, 127: 259-261. 284. . 1938. Caracteres cytologiques de tranches de tubercules de carotte cultives in vitro. C. r. soc. biol., Paris, 127 : 609-612. 285. . 1939. Sur la mesure de la croissance des tissus de carotte cultives in vitro. C. r. acad. sci., Paris, 208: 1340. 286. . 1940. Eecherches sur le bourgeonnement du tissu cambial d'Ulmus campestris cultiv6 in vitro. C. r. acad. sci., Paris, 210: 632-634. 287. . 1940. Nouvelles recherches sur le bourgeonne- ment du tissu cambial d 'Ulmus campestris cultivS in vitro. C. r. acad. sci., Paris, 210: 744-746. 288. . 1940. Recherches experimentales sur la polarity des tissus du tubercule de Carotte. C. r. acad. sci., Paris, 211: 15-18. 289. . 1940. Remarques sur la structure des tissus de carotte cultives in vitro. C. r. soc. biol., Paris, 134: 237- 238. 290. Gioelli, F. 1937. II differenziamento citologico ed isto- logico dei meristemi cambiali in vitro. (Nota I.) Accad. sei. Ferrara, atti 1937, vol. 14, 2' ser.: 172-174. 291. . 1937. Influenza della temperatura e della luce sullo sviluppo dei meristemi cambiali in vitro. (Nota II.)
- Kiister, E. 1911. Die Gallen der Pflanzen. pp. 437. Hir- zel Verlag, Leipzig. 301.
- White, P. R. 1934. Multiplication of the viruses of tobacco and aucuba mosaic in growing excised tomato roots. Phytopath. 24: 1003-1011. 439. . 1936. The cultivation of plant disease viruses in actively growing excised plant organs in vitro. Proc. 2nd Int. Congress Microbiol., London, pp. 30-31. Pathology -Animal 440.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 434
Light Dependence of Chloroplast Replication and Starch Metabolism in the Moss Polytrichum commune
Hahn, L. W., & Miller, J. H. (1966) · Physiologia Plantarum · doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.1966.tb09084.x · Cited by 18
Raghavan, V. (1961) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1961.tb11724.x · Cited by 18
DEVELOPMENTAL ASPECTS OF ROOTS OF PISUM SATIVUM INFLUENCED BY THE G2 FACTOR FROM COTYLEDONS
Evans, L. S. (1979) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1979.tb06296.x · Cited by 18
SOME ASPECTS OF DIFFERENTIATION IN CELLS OF PICEA GLAUCA CULTIVATED IN VITRO
White, P. R. (1967) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1967.tb06928.x · Cited by 18
Self-citationLee, A. E. (1959) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1959.tb06975.x · Cited by 18
Levine, M. (1950) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1950.tb08194.x · Cited by 18
Meristem Micropropagation Protocols for Vitis rotundifolia Michx.
Thies, K. L., & Graves, C. H. (1992) · HortScience · doi:10.21273/hortsci.27.5.447 · Cited by 17
A STUDY IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROBLEM OF HORMONIZATION OF SEEDS
Kruyt, W. (1954) · Acta Botanica Neerlandica · doi:10.1111/j.1438-8677.1954.tb00286.x · Cited by 17
Morphogenesis in Tissue Cultures of Different Organs of Nigella sativa
BANERJEE, S., & GUPTA, S. (1975) · Physiologia Plantarum · doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.1975.tb03790.x · Cited by 17
Vegetative Propagation of Palm Trees
Reynolds, J. F. (1982) · Forestry sciences · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-3538-4_7 · Cited by 17
Levine, M. (1951) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1951.tb14802.x · Cited by 17
A COMPARISON OF CERTAIN PROCEDURES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF PLANT TISSUE CULTURES
White, P. R. (1953) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1953.tb06514.x · Cited by 17
Self-citationStudies with Detached Lupin Root Nodules in Culture
Sutton, W. D., & Jepsen, N. M. (1975) · PLANT PHYSIOLOGY · doi:10.1104/pp.56.5.665 · Cited by 17
Differentiation in tissues, free cells, and reaggregated plant cells
Sigel, M. M., Sussex, I. M., & Clutter, M. E. (1967) · In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology - Plant · doi:10.1007/bf02615916 · Cited by 17
Street, H. E. (1953) · Physiologia Plantarum · doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.1953.tb08404.x · Cited by 17
Effect of Various Light Treatments on Chlorophyll Formation in Excised Potato Roots
Bajaj, Y. P. S., & McAllan, J. W. (1969) · Physiologia Plantarum · doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.1969.tb07836.x · Cited by 16
Rost, T. L., & Hof, J. V. (1973) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1973.tb10214.x · Cited by 16
Action de quelques composés phénoliques sur la tubérisation de la Pomme de terre
Paupardin, C., & Tizio, R. (1970) · Potato Research · doi:10.1007/bf02355974 · Cited by 16
Danesh, Y. R., ., E. M. G., Alizadeh, A. H. M., & Mohammad, M. S. S. A. (2005) · Journal of Biological Sciences · doi:10.3923/jbs.2006.87.91 · Cited by 15
Arbuscular Mycorrhiza: A Tool for Enhancing Crop Production
Sharma, S., Sharma, A. K., Prasad, R., & Varma, A. K. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-68867-1_12 · Cited by 15
Factors Affecting the Establishment of Callus Cultures in Wheat
Mathias, R. J. (1990) · Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-10933-5_2 · Cited by 15
Growth of Biotrophic Parasites in Axenic Culture
Scott, K. J. (1976) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-66279-9_27 · Cited by 15
Hof, J. V., & Rost, T. L. (1972) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1972.tb10151.x · Cited by 15
Direct analysis of root zone data in a microculture system
Smith, M. A. L., Spomer, L. A., & McClelland, M. T. (1990) · Plant Cell Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC) · doi:10.1007/bf00116085 · Cited by 15
Secondary Thickening in Excised Tomato Roots
Dormer, K. J., & Street, H. E. (1948) · Nature · doi:10.1038/161483a0 · Cited by 15
Further Studies on the Growth of Isolated Roots of Barley and Oats
Almestrand, A. (1950) · Physiologia Plantarum · doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.1950.tb07503.x · Cited by 15
Annual Variation in the Sterol Content of Digitalis purpurea L. Seedlings
Jacobsohn, M. K., & Jacobsohn, G. M. (1976) · PLANT PHYSIOLOGY · doi:10.1104/pp.58.4.541 · Cited by 14
Research Methods in Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi
Gaur, A., & Varma, A. K. (2007) · Soil biology · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70865-0_25 · Cited by 14
Effect of Organic Matter on the Growth of Cymbidium Protocorms Cultured in vitro
Kusumoto, M., & 古川, 仁. (1977) · Journal of the Japanese Society for Horticultural Science · doi:10.2503/jjshs.45.421 · Cited by 14
Rost, T. L., Jones, T. J., & Robbins, J. A. (1986) · PROTOPLASMA · doi:10.1007/bf01283332 · Cited by 14
Dipeptides and Amino Acids as Nitrogen Sources for the Callus of Atropa belladonna
Salonen, M., & Simola, L. K. (1977) · Physiologia Plantarum · doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.1977.tb01522.x · Cited by 14
RNA METABOLISM IN DEVELOPING COTYLEDONS OF PHASEOLUS VULGARIS*
Walbot, V. (1973) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.1973.tb04397.x · Cited by 14
Physiology of embryonic development in cormophytes
Wardlaw, C. W. (1965) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-50088-6_28 · Cited by 14
VARIABILITY OF CARROTS TO AUXIN, CASEIN HYDROLYSATE AND COCONUT MILK
Caplin, S. M. (1956) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1956.tb11164.x · Cited by 14
Growth and Morphogenesis in Tissue Cultures of Anagallis arvensis
Bajaj, Y. P. S., & Mäder, M. (1974) · Physiologia Plantarum · doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.1974.tb03724.x · Cited by 14
GROWTH AND HABITUATION IN TISSUE CULTURES OF ENGLISH IVY, HEDERA HELIX
Stoutemyer, V. T., & Britt, O. K. (1969) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1969.tb07526.x · Cited by 14
Weaks, T. E., & Hunt, G. E. (1973) · Physiologia Plantarum · doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.1973.tb04842.x · Cited by 14
Biochemical Effects of Sethoxydim in Excised Root Tips of Corn (Zea mays)
Hosaka, H., & Takagi, M. (1987) · Weed Science · doi:10.1017/s0043174500060665 · Cited by 14
Polit, J. T., & Ciereszko, I. (2009) · Physiologia Plantarum · doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.2008.01201.x · Cited by 13
Qahtan, A. A., Faisal, M., Alatar, A. A., & Abdel-Salam, E. M. (2021) · Plants · doi:10.3390/plants10122820 · Cited by 13
Trigonella Species: In Vitro Culture and Production of Secondary Metabolites
Christen, P. (2002) · Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-08616-2_17 · Cited by 13
ROOT TUMORS ON NICOTIANA AFFINIS SEEDLINGS GROWN IN VITRO ON A MALT AND YEAST EXTRACT MEDIUM
Tryon, K. (1955) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1955.tb10395.x · Cited by 13
Thompson, A., & MacLeod, R. D. (1981) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1981.tb07812.x · Cited by 13
FLOWER CULTURE OF A MALE STERILE STAMENLESS‐2 MUTANT OF TOMATO (LYCOPERSICON ESCULENTUM)
Rastogi, R., & Sawhney, V. K. (1988) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1988.tb13469.x · Cited by 13
DIFFERENTIATION OF ISOLATED INTERFASCICULAR TISSUE OF RICINUS COMMUNIS L.
Siebers, A. M. (1971) · Acta Botanica Neerlandica · doi:10.1111/j.1438-8677.1971.tb00717.x · Cited by 13
GREYSON, R. I., & Raman, K. (1975) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1975.tb14080.x · Cited by 13
Klingaman, T. E., & Peeper, T. F. (1989) · Weed Technology · doi:10.1017/s0890037x00032632 · Cited by 13
STUDIES ON THE GROWTH OF EXCISED ROOTS
Charles, H. P., & Street, H. E. (1959) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.1959.tb05336.x · Cited by 13
Street, H. E., & McGonagle, M. P. (1953) · Physiologia Plantarum · doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.1953.tb08443.x · Cited by 13
Growth and organ formation in Sinapis alba tissue cultures
Bajaj, Y. P. S., & Bopp, M. (1972) · Zeitschrift für Pflanzenphysiologie · doi:10.1016/s0044-328x(72)80155-7 · Cited by 13
Versuche zur Kultur isolierten Pflanzengewebes in vitro
Kandler, O. (1950) · Planta · doi:10.1007/bf01939622 · Cited by 13
Strawberries (Fragaria spp. and Hybrids)
Jungnickel, F. (1988) · Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-73520-2_2 · Cited by 12
CONTINUOUS GROWTH OF EXCISED POTATO ROOT TIPS
Chapman, H. W. (1956) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1956.tb10518.x · Cited by 12
Stability of the Flowering Stimulus in Isolated Stem Tips of Sugar-cane
Coleman, R. E., & Nickell, L. G. (1964) · Nature · doi:10.1038/201941a0 · Cited by 12
Bergmann, L. (1959) · Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.2164-0947.1959.tb00668.x · Cited by 12
Mycorrhizal Inoculum Production
Singh, S., Srivastava, K., Sharma, S., & Sharma, A. K. (2014) · Soil biology · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45370-4_5 · Cited by 11
2 Molecular Approaches to Arbuscular Mycorrhiza Functioning
Franken, P., Waschke, A., & Requena, N. (2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30826-0_2 · Cited by 11
Fritillaria spp. (Fritillary): In Vitro Culture and the Regeneration of Plants
Sun, C. S., & Wang, D. Y. (1991) · Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-84071-5_16 · Cited by 11
Alconero, R. (1988) · Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-73520-2_17 · Cited by 11
A simple plant polytene chromosome system, and its use for in situ hybridisation
Davies, D. R., & Cullis, C. A. (1982) · Plant Molecular Biology · doi:10.1007/bf00027561 · Cited by 11
Production of normal, germinable and viable pollen from in vitro-cultured maize tassels
Pareddy, D. R., GREYSON, R. I., & Walden, D. B. (1989) · Theoretical and Applied Genetics · doi:10.1007/bf00274273 · Cited by 11
Bowes, B. G. (1969) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.1969.tb06466.x · Cited by 11
The continuous culture of excised potato roots
Bajaj, Y. P. S., & Dionne, L. A. (1968) · New Zealand Journal of Botany · doi:10.1080/0028825x.1968.10429820 · Cited by 11
TISSUE CULTURES OF SOLANUM TUBEROSUM AND IPOMOEA PANDURATA
Lingappa, Y. (1957) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1957.tb10558.x · Cited by 11
Robbins, J. A., & Rost, T. L. (1987) · Journal of Plant Growth Regulation · doi:10.1007/bf02026456 · Cited by 11
In vitro Techniques and Plant Morphogenesis: Fundamental Aspects and Practical Applications.
Sangwan, R. S., Sangwan-Norreel, B. S., & Harada, H. (1997) · Plant Biotechnology · doi:10.5511/plantbiotechnology.14.93 · Cited by 10
Micropropagation of Eucalyptus
Jones, N. B., & Staden, J. V. (1997) · Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-07774-0_19 · Cited by 10
Bajaj, Y. P. S., & Simola, L. K. (1991) · Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-84071-5_1 · Cited by 10
Production of Secondary Metabolites
Constabel, F., & Kurz, W. G. W. (1997) · Books in soils, plants, and the environment · doi:10.1201/9781420049275.ptc · Cited by 10
Griga, M., & Novak, F. J. (1990) · Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-74448-8_4 · Cited by 10
STUDIES ON THE GROWTH OF EXCISED ROOTS
Hannay, J. W., Fletcher, B. L., & Street, H. E. (1959) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.1959.tb05346.x · Cited by 10
Amino-Acids and the Growth of Isolated Oat Embryos
Harris, G. P. (1953) · Nature · doi:10.1038/1721003a0 · Cited by 10
Dawson, R. F. (1948) · Advances in enzymology and related areas of molecular biology/Advances in enzymology and related subjects · doi:10.1002/9780470122532.ch5 · Cited by 10
Germplasm Reestablishment and Seedling Production: Embryo Culture
Biddle, J., Nguyen, Q. T., Mu, Z., Foale, M., & Adkins, S. W. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-44988-9_10 · Cited by 9
Polit, J. T. (2008) · Plant Cell Reports · doi:10.1007/s00299-008-0642-6 · Cited by 9
GÜNAYDIN, M., Laghari, A. H., Bektaş, E., Sökmen, M., & Sökmen, A. (2017) · TURKISH JOURNAL OF BIOLOGY · doi:10.3906/biy-1704-9 · Cited by 9
Embryo Culture and Haploid Plant Production
Kott, L. S., & Kasha, K. J. (1985) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-009-5133-4_2 · Cited by 9
Regulation of cell division in pea root tips after wounding: A possible role for ethylene
Rost, T. L., & Sammut, M. (1982) · PROTOPLASMA · doi:10.1007/bf01287641 · Cited by 9
Ethrel and Plant Tissue Cultures
Stoutemyer, V. T., & Britt, O. K. (1970) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1295585 · Cited by 9
Brown, S. J., & Klein, R. M. (1973) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1973.tb05957.x · Cited by 9
The growth and development of spontaneous plant tumors
Kehr, A. E. (1965) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-50088-6_44 · Cited by 9
AMINO ACIDS AS NITROGEN SOURCES FOR THE GROWTH OF EXCISED ROOTS OF RED CLOVER
Harris, G. P. (1959) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.1959.tb05366.x · Cited by 8
Short‐chain fatty‐acid‐induced effects on the cell cycle in root meristems of Pisum sativum
Tramontano, W. A., DeLillo, A. R., Yung, S., Natarajan, C., & Kearns, C. M. (1991) · Physiologia Plantarum · doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.1991.tb02905.x · Cited by 8
Reconstitution of Virus X-Saturated Potato Varieties with Malachite Green
Norris, D. (1953) · Nature · doi:10.1038/172816a0 · Cited by 8
Pohl, R. (1954) · Die Naturwissenschaften · doi:10.1007/bf00625665 · Cited by 8
Conserved message ofo-diphenolase in wheat embryos (Triticum aestivum)
Taneja, S. R., & Sachar, R. C. (1975) · Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf02326749 · Cited by 8
GROWTH AND SEXUAL REPRODUCTION OF THE MOSS AMBLYSTEGIUM RIPARIUM UNDER STERILE CONDITIONS
Belkengren, R. O. (1962) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1962.tb14982.x · Cited by 8
THE GROWTH IN CULTURE OF INTACT SEEDLINGS AND ISOLATED SEEDLING ORGANS
Lee, A. E. (1950) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1950.tb12201.x · Cited by 8
The effects of antiviral chemicals on potato virus X-I
Oshima, N., & Livingston, C. H. (1961) · American Journal of Potato Research · doi:10.1007/bf02862190 · Cited by 8
Somatic Embryogenesis in Spinach—A Review
Zdravković-Korać, S., Belić, M., Ćalić, D., & Milojević, J. (2023) · Horticulturae · doi:10.3390/horticulturae9091048 · Cited by 7
Regeneration and vegetative propagation. II
Swingle, C. F. (1952) · The Botanical Review · doi:10.1007/bf02861764 · Cited by 7
Physiological Responses to Sethoxydim in Tissues of Corn (Zea mays) and Pea (Pisum sativum)
Hosaka, H., & Takagi, M. (1987) · Weed Science · doi:10.1017/s0043174500060653 · Cited by 7
Jones, P. A. (1977) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1977.tb12368.x · Cited by 7
COMPARATIVE GROWTH OF EXCISED TOMATO ROOTS OF CLONES CARRYING DWARF AND NORMAL ALLELE
Lee, A. E. (1958) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1958.tb10605.x · Cited by 7
Virus x free roots from infected potato plants
Bajaj, Y. P. S., & Dionne, L. A. (1966) · American Journal of Potato Research · doi:10.1007/bf02862488 · Cited by 7
Evans, L. S., & Verville, K. M. (1978) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1978.tb10837.x · Cited by 7
Auxin-facilitated utilization of glutamic acid by tobacco crown-gall teratoma cells
Meins, F. (1970) · Planta · doi:10.1007/bf00388558 · Cited by 7
STUDIES ON THE GROWTH OF EXCISED ROOTS
Boll, W. G. (1954) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.1954.tb05250.x · Cited by 7
DEVELOPMENT OF EXCISED FLORAL BUDS OF AQUILEGIA: THE COCONUT‐MILK PROBLEM
Bilderback, D. E., Karpoff, A. J., & Tepfer, S. S. (1968) · American Journal of Botany · doi:10.1002/j.1537-2197.1968.tb07467.x · Cited by 7
Polter, C. (1966) · Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution · doi:10.1007/bf02095280 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- White, P. R.
- Corresponding author
- White, Philip R.
- ORCID
- White, Philip R.
- Publisher
- The J. Cattell press,
- Published
- 1943
- OpenAlex
- W2493594252
- Semantic Scholar
- d76b4ec8ed8703491a6ecaaf0eeaeb3af1fa81d2
- Cited by
- 434
- References
- 110
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 9.53
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Biodiversity Heritage Library (Smithsonian Institution) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant tissue culture and regeneration
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Molecular Biology Research
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant nutrient uptake and metabolism
- Keywords
- plant tissue culture, plant cell culture, totipotency, morphogenesis, wound healing, grafting
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-30, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-30 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
