yz2022/T2P-DownstreamNLP huggingface dataset:
Antenna_(radio)

For example, at 30 MHz (10 m wavelength) a true resonant 1⁄4-wavelength monopole would be almost 2.5 meters long, and using an antenna only 1.5 meters tall would require the addition of a loading coil. Then it may be said that the coil has lengthened the antenna to achieve an electrical length of 2.5 meters. However, the resulting resistive impedance achieved will be quite a bit lower than the impedance of a resonant monopole, likely requiring further impedance matching. In addition to a lower radiation resistance, the reactance becomes higher as the antenna size is reduced, and the resonant circuit formed by the antenna and the tuning coil has a Q factor that rises and eventually causes the bandwidth of the antenna to be inadequate for the signal being transmitted. This is the major factor that sets the size of antennas at 1 MHz and lower frequencies.

Question: What can be added to allow for an antenna shorter than the needed height to produce desired results?
Answer: loading coil
Flowering_plant

Island genetics provides one proposed explanation for the sudden, fully developed appearance of flowering plants. Island genetics is believed to be a common source of speciation in general, especially when it comes to radical adaptations that seem to have required inferior transitional forms. Flowering plants may have evolved in an isolated setting like an island or island chain, where the plants bearing them were able to develop a highly specialized relationship with some specific animal (a wasp, for example). Such a relationship, with a hypothetical wasp carrying pollen from one plant to another much the way fig wasps do today, could result in the development of a high degree of specialization in both the plant(s) and their partners. Note that the wasp example is not incidental; bees, which, it is postulated, evolved specifically due to mutualistic plant relationships, are descended from wasps.

Question: What is island genetics thought to be a default source of?
Answer: speciation

Question: What are bees descended from?
Answer: wasps

Question: What is one proposed explanation for the instant appearance of flowering plants?
Answer: Island genetics

Question: What did radical adaptations seem to have required?
Answer: inferior transitional forms
Flowering_plant

The apparently sudden appearance of nearly modern flowers in the fossil record initially posed such a problem for the theory of evolution that it was called an "abominable mystery" by Charles Darwin. However, the fossil record has considerably grown since the time of Darwin, and recently discovered angiosperm fossils such as Archaefructus, along with further discoveries of fossil gymnosperms, suggest how angiosperm characteristics may have been acquired in a series of steps. Several groups of extinct gymnosperms, in particular seed ferns, have been proposed as the ancestors of flowering plants, but there is no continuous fossil evidence showing exactly how flowers evolved. Some older fossils, such as the upper Triassic Sanmiguelia, have been suggested. Based on current evidence, some propose that the ancestors of the angiosperms diverged from an unknown group of gymnosperms in the Triassic period (245–202 million years ago). Fossil angiosperm-like pollen from the Middle Triassic (247.2–242.0 Ma) suggests an older date for their origin. A close relationship between angiosperms and gnetophytes, proposed on the basis of morphological evidence, has more recently been disputed on the basis of molecular evidence that suggest gnetophytes are instead more closely related to other gymnosperms.[citation needed]

Question: What did Charles Darwin call the sudden appearance of nearly modern flowers in the fossil record?
Answer: abominable mystery

Question: What type of fossil is the recently discovered Archaefructus?
Answer: angiosperm
Flowering_plant

The exact relationship between these eight groups is not yet clear, although there is agreement that the first three groups to diverge from the ancestral angiosperm were Amborellales, Nymphaeales, and Austrobaileyales. The term basal angiosperms refers to these three groups. Among the rest, the relationship between the three broadest of these groups (magnoliids, monocots, and eudicots) remains unclear. Some analyses make the magnoliids the first to diverge, others the monocots. Ceratophyllum seems to group with the eudicots rather than with the monocots.

Question: What term refers to the first three groups to diverge from angiosperm?
Answer: basal

Question: What three groups were the first to diverge from angiosperm?
Answer: Amborellales, Nymphaeales, and Austrobaileyales
Antenna_(radio)

For example, at 30 MHz (10 m wavelength) a true resonant 1⁄4-wavelength monopole would be almost 2.5 meters long, and using an antenna only 1.5 meters tall would require the addition of a loading coil. Then it may be said that the coil has lengthened the antenna to achieve an electrical length of 2.5 meters. However, the resulting resistive impedance achieved will be quite a bit lower than the impedance of a resonant monopole, likely requiring further impedance matching. In addition to a lower radiation resistance, the reactance becomes higher as the antenna size is reduced, and the resonant circuit formed by the antenna and the tuning coil has a Q factor that rises and eventually causes the bandwidth of the antenna to be inadequate for the signal being transmitted. This is the major factor that sets the size of antennas at 1 MHz and lower frequencies.

Question: The coil has lengthed the antenna to reach how much length electrically?
Answer: 2.5 meters
Flowering_plant

The exact relationship between these eight groups is not yet clear, although there is agreement that the first three groups to diverge from the ancestral angiosperm were Amborellales, Nymphaeales, and Austrobaileyales. The term basal angiosperms refers to these three groups. Among the rest, the relationship between the three broadest of these groups (magnoliids, monocots, and eudicots) remains unclear. Some analyses make the magnoliids the first to diverge, others the monocots. Ceratophyllum seems to group with the eudicots rather than with the monocots.

Question: What group do some analyses seem to indicate diverged first?
Answer: magnoliids
Antenna_(radio)

For example, at 30 MHz (10 m wavelength) a true resonant 1⁄4-wavelength monopole would be almost 2.5 meters long, and using an antenna only 1.5 meters tall would require the addition of a loading coil. Then it may be said that the coil has lengthened the antenna to achieve an electrical length of 2.5 meters. However, the resulting resistive impedance achieved will be quite a bit lower than the impedance of a resonant monopole, likely requiring further impedance matching. In addition to a lower radiation resistance, the reactance becomes higher as the antenna size is reduced, and the resonant circuit formed by the antenna and the tuning coil has a Q factor that rises and eventually causes the bandwidth of the antenna to be inadequate for the signal being transmitted. This is the major factor that sets the size of antennas at 1 MHz and lower frequencies.

Question: What is the major thing that sets the size of antennas at lower frequencies?
Answer: reactance
Flowering_plant

The apparently sudden appearance of nearly modern flowers in the fossil record initially posed such a problem for the theory of evolution that it was called an "abominable mystery" by Charles Darwin. However, the fossil record has considerably grown since the time of Darwin, and recently discovered angiosperm fossils such as Archaefructus, along with further discoveries of fossil gymnosperms, suggest how angiosperm characteristics may have been acquired in a series of steps. Several groups of extinct gymnosperms, in particular seed ferns, have been proposed as the ancestors of flowering plants, but there is no continuous fossil evidence showing exactly how flowers evolved. Some older fossils, such as the upper Triassic Sanmiguelia, have been suggested. Based on current evidence, some propose that the ancestors of the angiosperms diverged from an unknown group of gymnosperms in the Triassic period (245–202 million years ago). Fossil angiosperm-like pollen from the Middle Triassic (247.2–242.0 Ma) suggests an older date for their origin. A close relationship between angiosperms and gnetophytes, proposed on the basis of morphological evidence, has more recently been disputed on the basis of molecular evidence that suggest gnetophytes are instead more closely related to other gymnosperms.[citation needed]

Question: What fossil evidence is lacking when it comes to flowers?
Answer: evidence showing exactly how flowers evolved
Flowering_plant

Island genetics provides one proposed explanation for the sudden, fully developed appearance of flowering plants. Island genetics is believed to be a common source of speciation in general, especially when it comes to radical adaptations that seem to have required inferior transitional forms. Flowering plants may have evolved in an isolated setting like an island or island chain, where the plants bearing them were able to develop a highly specialized relationship with some specific animal (a wasp, for example). Such a relationship, with a hypothetical wasp carrying pollen from one plant to another much the way fig wasps do today, could result in the development of a high degree of specialization in both the plant(s) and their partners. Note that the wasp example is not incidental; bees, which, it is postulated, evolved specifically due to mutualistic plant relationships, are descended from wasps.

Question: How did an isolated setting like an island help flowering plants evolve?
Answer: highly specialized relationship with some specific animal
Flowering_plant

The apparently sudden appearance of nearly modern flowers in the fossil record initially posed such a problem for the theory of evolution that it was called an "abominable mystery" by Charles Darwin. However, the fossil record has considerably grown since the time of Darwin, and recently discovered angiosperm fossils such as Archaefructus, along with further discoveries of fossil gymnosperms, suggest how angiosperm characteristics may have been acquired in a series of steps. Several groups of extinct gymnosperms, in particular seed ferns, have been proposed as the ancestors of flowering plants, but there is no continuous fossil evidence showing exactly how flowers evolved. Some older fossils, such as the upper Triassic Sanmiguelia, have been suggested. Based on current evidence, some propose that the ancestors of the angiosperms diverged from an unknown group of gymnosperms in the Triassic period (245–202 million years ago). Fossil angiosperm-like pollen from the Middle Triassic (247.2–242.0 Ma) suggests an older date for their origin. A close relationship between angiosperms and gnetophytes, proposed on the basis of morphological evidence, has more recently been disputed on the basis of molecular evidence that suggest gnetophytes are instead more closely related to other gymnosperms.[citation needed]

Question: What relationship proposed on the basis of morphological evidence has recently been disputed?
Answer: relationship between angiosperms and gnetophytes
Flowering_plant

Fossilized spores suggest that higher plants (embryophytes) have lived on land for at least 475 million years. Early land plants reproduced sexually with flagellated, swimming sperm, like the green algae from which they evolved. An adaptation to terrestrialization was the development of upright meiosporangia for dispersal by spores to new habitats. This feature is lacking in the descendants of their nearest algal relatives, the Charophycean green algae. A later terrestrial adaptation took place with retention of the delicate, avascular sexual stage, the gametophyte, within the tissues of the vascular sporophyte. This occurred by spore germination within sporangia rather than spore release, as in non-seed plants. A current example of how this might have happened can be seen in the precocious spore germination in Selaginella, the spike-moss. The result for the ancestors of angiosperms was enclosing them in a case, the seed. The first seed bearing plants, like the ginkgo, and conifers (such as pines and firs), did not produce flowers. The pollen grains (males) of Ginkgo and cycads produce a pair of flagellated, mobile sperm cells that "swim" down the developing pollen tube to the female and her eggs.

Question: Upright meisporangia allowed what to be dispersed to new habitats?
Answer: spores
Flowering_plant

The earliest known macrofossil confidently identified as an angiosperm, Archaefructus liaoningensis, is dated to about 125 million years BP (the Cretaceous period), whereas pollen considered to be of angiosperm origin takes the fossil record back to about 130 million years BP. However, one study has suggested that the early-middle Jurassic plant Schmeissneria, traditionally considered a type of ginkgo, may be the earliest known angiosperm, or at least a close relative. In addition, circumstantial chemical evidence has been found for the existence of angiosperms as early as 250 million years ago. Oleanane, a secondary metabolite produced by many flowering plants, has been found in Permian deposits of that age together with fossils of gigantopterids. Gigantopterids are a group of extinct seed plants that share many morphological traits with flowering plants, although they are not known to have been flowering plants themselves.

Question: What pushes the age of angiosperm 5 million years further back?
Answer: pollen

Question: What group of now extinct seed plants had many of the traits of what are now flowering plants?
Answer: Gigantopterids

Question: When is the earliest known macrofossil identified as an angiosperm dated?
Answer: about 125 million years BP

Question: How long ago has circumstantial evidence has been found for the existence of angiosperms?
Answer: 250 million years ago

Question: What is the earliest known angiosperm?
Answer: Archaefructus liaoningensis
Flowering_plant

The internal classification of this group has undergone considerable revision. The Cronquist system, proposed by Arthur Cronquist in 1968 and published in its full form in 1981, is still widely used but is no longer believed to accurately reflect phylogeny. A consensus about how the flowering plants should be arranged has recently begun to emerge through the work of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (APG), which published an influential reclassification of the angiosperms in 1998. Updates incorporating more recent research were published as APG II in 2003 and as APG III in 2009.

Question: What consensus is the AGP trying to reach?
Answer: how the flowering plants should be arranged

Question: What system did Arthur Cronquist put forth in 1968, but not publish in full form until 1981?
Answer: The Cronquist system
Flowering_plant

The apparently sudden appearance of nearly modern flowers in the fossil record initially posed such a problem for the theory of evolution that it was called an "abominable mystery" by Charles Darwin. However, the fossil record has considerably grown since the time of Darwin, and recently discovered angiosperm fossils such as Archaefructus, along with further discoveries of fossil gymnosperms, suggest how angiosperm characteristics may have been acquired in a series of steps. Several groups of extinct gymnosperms, in particular seed ferns, have been proposed as the ancestors of flowering plants, but there is no continuous fossil evidence showing exactly how flowers evolved. Some older fossils, such as the upper Triassic Sanmiguelia, have been suggested. Based on current evidence, some propose that the ancestors of the angiosperms diverged from an unknown group of gymnosperms in the Triassic period (245–202 million years ago). Fossil angiosperm-like pollen from the Middle Triassic (247.2–242.0 Ma) suggests an older date for their origin. A close relationship between angiosperms and gnetophytes, proposed on the basis of morphological evidence, has more recently been disputed on the basis of molecular evidence that suggest gnetophytes are instead more closely related to other gymnosperms.[citation needed]

Question: From what period does fossilized pollen suggest an older date for angiosperm origin?
Answer: Middle Triassic
Flowering_plant

The internal classification of this group has undergone considerable revision. The Cronquist system, proposed by Arthur Cronquist in 1968 and published in its full form in 1981, is still widely used but is no longer believed to accurately reflect phylogeny. A consensus about how the flowering plants should be arranged has recently begun to emerge through the work of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (APG), which published an influential reclassification of the angiosperms in 1998. Updates incorporating more recent research were published as APG II in 2003 and as APG III in 2009.

Question: Who published an influential reclassification of the angiosperms in 1998?
Answer: APG
Flowering_plant

Recent studies, as by the APG, show that the monocots form a monophyletic group (clade) but that the dicots do not (they are paraphyletic). Nevertheless, the majority of dicot species do form a monophyletic group, called the eudicots or tricolpates. Of the remaining dicot species, most belong to a third major clade known as the magnoliids, containing about 9,000 species. The rest include a paraphyletic grouping of primitive species known collectively as the basal angiosperms, plus the families Ceratophyllaceae and Chloranthaceae.

Question: What type of groups do monocots form, based on a recent APG studies?
Answer: monophyletic

Question: Eudicots or tricolpates are part of a monophyletic group formed by what species?
Answer: dicot

Question: What third major clade can many dicot species be found in?
Answer: magnoliids

Question: Basal angiosperms are what type of grouping of primitive species?
Answer: paraphyletic

Question: How many species dicot species are magnoliids?
Answer: about 9,000
Flowering_plant

The internal classification of this group has undergone considerable revision. The Cronquist system, proposed by Arthur Cronquist in 1968 and published in its full form in 1981, is still widely used but is no longer believed to accurately reflect phylogeny. A consensus about how the flowering plants should be arranged has recently begun to emerge through the work of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (APG), which published an influential reclassification of the angiosperms in 1998. Updates incorporating more recent research were published as APG II in 2003 and as APG III in 2009.

Question: What internal component has undergone considerable revision?
Answer: classification
Flowering_plant

The botanical term "Angiosperm", from the Ancient Greek αγγείον, angeíon (bottle, vessel) and σπέρμα, (seed), was coined in the form Angiospermae by Paul Hermann in 1690, as the name of one of his primary divisions of the plant kingdom. This included flowering plants possessing seeds enclosed in capsules, distinguished from his Gymnospermae, or flowering plants with achenial or schizo-carpic fruits, the whole fruit or each of its pieces being here regarded as a seed and naked. The term and its antonym were maintained by Carl Linnaeus with the same sense, but with restricted application, in the names of the orders of his class Didynamia. Its use with any approach to its modern scope became possible only after 1827, when Robert Brown established the existence of truly naked ovules in the Cycadeae and Coniferae, and applied to them the name Gymnosperms.[citation needed] From that time onward, as long as these Gymnosperms were, as was usual, reckoned as dicotyledonous flowering plants, the term Angiosperm was used antithetically by botanical writers, with varying scope, as a group-name for other dicotyledonous plants.

Question: What term did Paul Hermann come up with in 1690?
Answer: Angiosperm

Question: What did Hermann use the term angiosperm a primary division of in the plant kingdom?
Answer: primary

Question: Who restricted the application of the angiosperm term?
Answer: Carl Linnaeus

Question: What did Robert Brown establish the existence of in Cycadeae and Coniferae?
Answer: naked ovules
Flowering_plant

The number of species of flowering plants is estimated to be in the range of 250,000 to 400,000. This compares to around 12,000 species of moss or 11,000 species of pteridophytes, showing that the flowering plants are much more diverse. The number of families in APG (1998) was 462. In APG II (2003) it is not settled; at maximum it is 457, but within this number there are 55 optional segregates, so that the minimum number of families in this system is 402. In APG III (2009) there are 415 families.

Question: What is the estimated range for the number of flowering plants?
Answer: 250,000 to 400,000

Question: How many species of moss is there?
Answer: 12,000

Question: What are the minimum number of families in the APG system?
Answer: 402

Question: What does the large number of flowering plant species indicate is true of them in general?
Answer: diverse
Flowering_plant

The botanical term "Angiosperm", from the Ancient Greek αγγείον, angeíon (bottle, vessel) and σπέρμα, (seed), was coined in the form Angiospermae by Paul Hermann in 1690, as the name of one of his primary divisions of the plant kingdom. This included flowering plants possessing seeds enclosed in capsules, distinguished from his Gymnospermae, or flowering plants with achenial or schizo-carpic fruits, the whole fruit or each of its pieces being here regarded as a seed and naked. The term and its antonym were maintained by Carl Linnaeus with the same sense, but with restricted application, in the names of the orders of his class Didynamia. Its use with any approach to its modern scope became possible only after 1827, when Robert Brown established the existence of truly naked ovules in the Cycadeae and Coniferae, and applied to them the name Gymnosperms.[citation needed] From that time onward, as long as these Gymnosperms were, as was usual, reckoned as dicotyledonous flowering plants, the term Angiosperm was used antithetically by botanical writers, with varying scope, as a group-name for other dicotyledonous plants.

Question: What is the group-name angiosperm has been used for by botanical writers?
Answer: other dicotyledonous plants
Flowering_plant

The number of species of flowering plants is estimated to be in the range of 250,000 to 400,000. This compares to around 12,000 species of moss or 11,000 species of pteridophytes, showing that the flowering plants are much more diverse. The number of families in APG (1998) was 462. In APG II (2003) it is not settled; at maximum it is 457, but within this number there are 55 optional segregates, so that the minimum number of families in this system is 402. In APG III (2009) there are 415 families.

Question: How many families are in AGP III?
Answer: 415