Using information in taxonomists’ heads to resolve hagfish and lamprey relationships and recapitulate craniate–vertebrate phylogenetic history
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1806, a hypothesis in which hagfishes and lampreys were classified as the taxon Cyclostomi was proposed on the basis of shared morphological traits. That ‘monophyletic cyclostome’ classification prevailed into the twentieth century and has persisted until the present. In 1958, a study involving coordinate grid transformations to analyse head ontogenies for living and fossil craniates was published. Results obtained in that evolutionary–developmental analysis revealed that extant hagfishes and extinct heterostracans developed substantially differently from closely related extant and extinct agnathans and warranted recognition as a distinct lineage. In 1977, a classification in which lampreys and jawed vertebrates formed a group exclusively from hagfishes was proposed on the basis of neontological, morphological and molecular traits. This ‘paraphyletic cyclostome’ classification garnered acceptance among some taxonomists and has persisted alongside the monophyletic cyclostome classification until the present. We applied geometric morphometrics to data obtained from the 1958 evolutionary–developmental analysis, to objectively test and confirm these overlooked and underappreciated results. We demonstrated that the paraphyletic cyclostome classification was conceived at least 19 years earlier than usually acknowledged. Our reanalysis emphasises that the debate on whether the Cyclostomata is monophyletic or paraphyletic must be resolved formally on the basis of principles and practices for phylogenetic systematic analysis including fossil data.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it