The distribution and abundance of electrosensory pores in two benthic sharks: a comparison of the wobbegong shark, Orectolobus maculatus, and the angel shark, Squatina australis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electroreception is an ancient sense found in many aquatic animals, including sharks, which may be used in the detection of prey, predators and mates. Wobbegong sharks (Orectolobidae) and angel sharks (Squatinidae) represent two distantly related families that have independently evolved a similar dorso-ventrally compressed body form to complement their benthic ambush feeding strategy. Consequently, these groups represent useful models in which to investigate the specific morphological and physiological adaptations that are driven by the adoption of a benthic lifestyle. In this study, we compared the distribution and abundance of electrosensory pores in the spotted wobbegong shark (Orectolobus maculatus) with the Australian angel shark (Squatina australis) to determine whether both species display a similar pattern of clustering of sub-dermal electroreceptors and to further understand the functional importance of electroreception in the feeding behaviour of these benthic sharks. Orectolobus maculatus has a more complex electrosensory system than S. australis, with a higher abundance of pores and an additional cluster of electroreceptors positioned in the snout (the superficial ophthalmic cluster). Interestingly, both species possess a cluster of pores (the hyoid cluster, positioned slightly posterior to the first gill slit) more commonly found in rays, but which may be present in all benthic elasmobranchs to assist in the detection of approaching predators.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".