{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028109028960817718, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.34375, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The “Amentiferae” or Hamamelidae as an artificial group: A summary statement

The various contributions to this symposium on the “Amentiferae” reach the general conclusion that the group is an artificial aggregation of taxa of diverse origin that have converged to a common evolutionary plateau in possessing a large syndrome of characteristics that adapt them for successful cross-pollination by wind. Aside from those few families (Eucommiaceae, Casuarinaceae, Fagaceae, and Betulaceae) that apparently do have close relationships (close common origin) with each other and with the Hamamelidales, the following taxa should be removed from the Hamamelidae: Juglandales (Juglandaceae and Rhoipteleaceae) to the Rutales as the Juglandineae near the Anacardiineae; Myricaceae and Leitneriaceae respectively to the Myricales and Leitneriales near the Rutales in the Rutiflorae; Urticales (excludingBarbeya andEucommia) to the Malviflorae near the Malvales and Euphorbiales;Picrodendron to the Euphorbiaceae; Didymelaceae to the Euphorbiales; Myrothamnaceae to the Brunineae of the Pittosporales; andBalanops, Barbeya, andCanacomyrica, along withBatis, to “taxa incertae sedis.”