The Comparative Morphology of the Cerebellum in Caprimulgiform Birds: Evolutionary and Functional Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interspecific variation in the structure of the avian cerebellum is poorly understood. We present the first comparison of cerebellar morphology within the avian order Caprimulgiformes. Using a range of qualitative descriptions and quantitative measurements of cerebellar morphology we compared caprimulgiform birds with hummingbirds and swifts (Apodiformes) and owls (Strigiformes), two groups that are putative sister taxa to the Caprimulgiformes. Our results demonstrate that the owlet-nightjars (Aegothelidae), nightjars (Caprimulgidae) and potoos (Nyctibiidae) are more similar to apodiforms than they are to other taxa. All of these species have a reduced anterior lobe characterized by particularly small folia II and III and a relatively large posterior lobe. The frogmouths (Podargidae) possess a markedly different cerebellum that is more similar to that of owls than any of the caprimulgiform or apodiform birds. The monotypic oilbird (Steatornis caripensis, Steatornithidae) possesses a cerebellum with some nightjar-like features and some owl-like features, but overall it too resembles an owl more than a nightjar. This cerebellar diversity within the order Caprimulgiformes has significant implications for understanding the evolutionary relationships within the order, how the avian cerebellum has evolved and whether interspecific differences in cerebellar morphology reflect behavior.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".