Microanatomy of the paired‐fin pads of ostariophysan fishes (Teleostei: Ostariophysi)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Members of the teleost superorder Ostariophysi dominate freshwater habitats on all continents except Antarctica and Australia. Obligate benthic and rheophilic taxa from four different orders of the Ostariophysi (Gonorynchiformes, Cypriniformes, Characiformes, and Siluriformes) frequently exhibit thickened pads of skin along the ventral surface of the anteriormost ray or rays of horizontally orientated paired (pectoral and pelvic) fins. Such paired-fin pads, though convergent, are externally homogenous across ostariophysan groups (particularly nonsiluriform taxa) and have been considered previously to be the result of epidermal modification. Histological examination of the pectoral and/or pelvic fins of 44 species of ostariophysans (including members of the Gonorynchiforms, Cypriniformes, Characiformes, and Siluriformes) revealed a tremendous and previously unrecognized diversity in the cellular arrangement of the skin layers (epidermis and subdermis) contributing to the paired-fin pads. Three types of paired-fin pads (Types 1-3) are identified in nonsiluriform ostariophysan fishes, based on differences in the cellular arrangement of the epidermis and subdermis. The paired-fin pads of siluriforms may or may not exhibit a deep series of ridges and grooves across the surface. Two distinct patterns of unculus producing cells are identified in the epidermis of the paired-fin pads of siluriforms, one of which is characterized by distinct bands of keratinization throughout the epidermis and is described in Amphilius platychir (Amphiliidae) for the first time. General histological comparisons between the paired fins of benthic and rheophilic ostariophysan and nonostariophysan percomorph fishes are provided, and the possible function(s) of the paired-fin pads of ostariophysan fish are discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".