MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990842798 · doi:10.1093/icb/icn008

The Origin of Higher Clades. Osteology, Myology, Phylogeny and Evolution of Bony Fishes and the Rise of Tetrapods. Rui Diogo.

2008· article· en· W1990842798 on OpenAlexaff
Robert L. Carroll

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrative and Comparative Biology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFish Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteologyMyologyCladeBiologyPhylogeneticsEvolutionary biologyZoologyAnatomyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This book is intended for those thoroughly convinced of the effectiveness of computer-driven phylogenetic systematics in establishing relationships at all taxonomic levels, and willing to accept significant changes in the usage of long-accepted names of major groups of organisms. This is immediately evident in the use of the term “tetrapod” in the subtitle, which I assumed to mean four legged, primarily terrestrial vertebrates, but which I soon discovered was extended to include all their antecedents, back to a basal dichotomy among very early bony fish. Even the author occasionally slipped back to the common usage in referring to Ichthyostega and Acanthostega (oddly not in the index) as early tetrapods. Another major problem, common to many large-scale analyses using PAUP, is to concentrate on living representatives of long-surviving taxonomic groups, necessary when dealing with molecular data and aspects of the soft anatomy, but failing to consider the obvious importance of fossils, which may much better represent the characteristics of the actual antecedents. For example, Diogo asks whether lungfish or coelacanths are the sister-taxon of tetrapods, to which a paleontologist would answer, “neither,” but refer to another group, known only from the fossil record, the rhipidistians that include the most primitive vertebrates possessing an internal nares, otherwise a synapomorphy of tetrapods. These are the only known assemblage providing evidence of the evolutionary origin of terrestrial vertebrates. The bias toward comparison among modern vertebrates is further exemplified by a character matrix incorporating 73 extant taxa, but only 7 fossil genera. Aside from osteological characters common to all clades, emphasis was placed on cranial and pectoral musculature and the Weberian apparatus. These features may provide an effective means for establishing probable relationships among the living members of particular lineages, but inherently limit comparison with clades known only from the fossil record. The rate of turnover at the level of species, genera, and families (as indicated by the very good record of fossil mammals) demonstrates that there were probably far more fish taxa that have become extinct than are living today, making it improbable that any phylogenetic analysis restricted to modern species will provide an accurate image of the inter-relationships of clades that originated hundreds of millions of years ago. Large-scale analyses of other taxonomic groups such as amphibians (Frost et al.: “The Amphibian Tree of Life”, 2006, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 297: 1–370) and many examples described in Systematic Biology clearly demonstrate that apparent patterns of relationships based on living species are highly dependent on the particular taxa studied and the specific characters or genes selected. The most informative analysis in this book was a contrast of results gained from myological versus osteological characters in comparison with those characters combined in a single phylogenetic reconstruction. This demonstrated that muscular features were more “conservative,” making for much less resolution at lower taxonomic levels, and resulting in many polytomies. Individual bones were more informative, providing for an average of 1.8 informative characters per bone, compared with 1.4 for muscles. Muscles, of course, were of no help in the placement of fossil groups, but in combination with osteological characters resulted in an overall phylogeny closer to that produced by other analyses. Phylogenetic analyses of long-surviving groups based on molecular data and knowledge of the soft anatomy will continue to provide evidence of putative relationships, but it should be recognized that without inclusion of available data from the fossil record, these approaches will provide only an incomplete understanding of the nature of prior evolutionary events such as phylogenetic divergence, progressive modifications in anatomy, and adaptation to different environments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueIntegrative and Comparative BiologySame topicFish Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207