Developmental patterns of the crocodilian and avian columella auris: reappraisal of interpretations of the derivation of the dorsal hyoid arch in archosaurian tetrapods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The morphogenesis of the crocodilian and avian columella auris is analysed, using Alligator and Struthio as models that are studied in detail, and Crocodylus, Gallus, and Coturnix as models for comparative purposes. This investigation was undertaken to address controversies emanating from previous studies concerning the identity of archosaurian hyal elements, and to clarify confounding nomenclature that has been used for both topographic and phylogenetic purposes. We found that confusion in the identification of the reptilian and avian hyoid arch derivatives is attributable to: (1) redundant and/or inconsistently applied topographical terminology; (2) mixing of topographical and phylogenetic terminology; (3) interpretation in a recapitulatory framework; and (4) failure to consider that developmental pathways of recent archosaurians (reptilians and birds) might be divergently modified. Our analysis identifies errors in previous interpretations, misinterpretations of prior work, and histological observations that have been idealized. The most controversial issues are addressed–the derivation of the supracolumellar process; the concept of the laterohyal component; and segmentation of the distal part of the reptilian and avian columella auris. Based on new data, we suggest that the osteichthyan infrapharyngohyal, suprapharyngohyal, epihyal, and ceratohyal are not applicable terms for reptilian and avian columellar components from a phylogenetic perspective, and should not be used as topographical terms either. We further propose that the original morphogenetic program of the hyoid arch has been overwritten in newly derived evolutionary pathways of crocodilians and birds, in which a new functional and morphological patterning of the hyoid arch, as a specific sound-transmitting apparatus, have evolved.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from 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".