Dissociation of somatic growth from segmentation drives gigantism in snakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Body size is significantly correlated with number of vertebrae (pleomerism) in multiple vertebrate lineages, indicating that change in number of body segments produced during somitogenesis is an important factor in evolutionary change in body size, but the role of segmentation in the evolution of extreme sizes, including gigantism, has not been examined. We explored the relationship between body size and vertebral count in basal snakes that exhibit gigantism. Boids, pythonids and the typhlopid genera, Typhlops and Rhinotyphlops, possess a positive relationship between body size and vertebral count, confirming the importance of pleomerism; however, giant taxa possessed fewer than expected vertebrae, indicating that a separate process underlies the evolution of gigantism in snakes. The lack of correlation between body size and vertebral number in giant taxa demonstrates dissociation of segment production in early development from somatic growth during maturation, indicating that gigantism is achieved by modifying development at a different stage from that normally selected for changes in body size.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".