The otic region of<i>Doleserpeton</i>(Temnospondyli) and its implications for the evolutionary origin of frogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing evidence that the Palaeozoic temnospondyl amphibians had a frog-like tympanic hearing system. For this reason, the otic region of Doleserpeton is described and compared with modern anurans. The otic capsules are expanded laterally and ventrally relative to other temnospondyls. The opisthotic has a bulbous ventral region resembling the ventrolateral ledge in modern frogs. Two lateral processes are located on the paroccipital process. Comparison with the condition in modern anurans with a tympanic hearing system shows that this may have been the attachment site for the tympanic annulus. Parts of the osseous labyrinth are also described. The inner ear shows numerous features resembling the condition found in frogs. These include strong evidence for the presence of a lissamphibian-type perilymphatic duct most closely resembling that of anurans. This is the first time such a perilymphatic system has been described in any Palaezoic form. The posterior part of the braincase shows a jugular foramen closely associated with the perilymphatic foramen, as in anurans. Although the distribution of these traits among other temnospondyl groups remains little known, the sum of the evidence points to affinities between anurans and temnospondyls, and adds to the evidence for a close relationship between anurans and the Permian amphibamid Doleserpeton.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".