Larval and early post-larval morphology, growth, and behaviour of laboratory reared <i>Lopholithodes foraminatus</i> (brown box crab)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The larval and post-larval behaviour, growth, colour, and morphology of the brown box crab (Lopholithodes foraminatus) are described for the first time based on laboratory reared animals. A detailed morphological description is provided for 4 zoeal stages, the glaucothoe, and the first crab instar. Selected morphological changes over the remainder of the first year of development are also described. Data are presented on larval growth at 11°C and on zoeal stage durations at approximately 8°C, 12°C and 16°C. While the 4 zoeal stages are planktotrophic, the glaucothoe does not feed; a life history character that has been termed ‘secondary lecithotrophy’. Growth of L. foraminatus larvae and post-larvae is generally similar to that of other North Pacific lithodids with planktotrophic zoeae. Zoeal stage durations decrease with increasing temperature. This relationship levels off at approximately 16°C, a higher temperature than in lithodid species from colder regions. Carapace morphology is suggested as a diagnostic character of larval and post-larval stages of Lopholithodes foraminatus. Secondary lecithotrophy may be widespread or even universal among lithodids and also occurs in pagurid hermit crabs. If the family Lithodidae is indeed nested within the Paguridae, as suggested by recent phylogenetic hypotheses based on molecular evidence, secondary lecithotrophy may be plesiomorphic in lithodids.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".