Primary homologies of the circumorbital bones of snakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some snakes have two circumorbital ossifications that in the current literature are usually referred to as the postorbital and supraorbital. We review the arguments that have been proposed to justify this interpretation and provide counter-arguments that reject those conjectures of primary homology based on the observation of 32 species of lizards and 81 species of snakes (both extant and fossil). We present similarity arguments, both topological and structural, for reinterpretation of the primary homologies of the dorsal and posterior orbital ossifications of snakes. Applying the test of similarity, we conclude that the posterior orbital ossification of snakes is topologically consistent as the homolog of the lacertilian jugal, and that the dorsal orbital ossification present in some snakes (e.g., pythons, Loxocemus, and Calabaria) is the homolog of the lacertilian postfrontal. We therefore propose that the terms postorbital and supraorbital should be abandoned as reference language for the circumorbital bones of snakes, and be replaced with the terms jugal and postfrontal, respectively. The primary homology claim for the snake "postorbital" fails the test of similarity, while the term "supraorbital" is an unnecessary and inaccurate application of the concept of a neomorphic ossification, for an element that passes the test of similarity as a postfrontal. This reinterpretation of the circumorbital bones of snakes is bound to have important repercussions for future phylogenetic analyses and consequently for our understanding of the origin and evolution of snakes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".