Configuration of the setal fields of<i>Rhoptropus</i>(Gekkota: Gekkonidae): functional, evolutionary, ecological and phylogenetic implications of observed pattern
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many gekkotans possess seta-bearing adhesive subdigital pads. Details of setal structure, however, are largely based upon putatively exemplary fibrils deemed typical of the species. Little is known of the pattern of configuration of the setae across the subdigital pads and how great, if any, the variance in structure and dimensions is. To understand setal fields as functional entities, as opposed to individual setae, it is necessary to consider this pattern. Additionally, gekkotans within individual radiations occupy different environments and potentially are substrate-specific in terms of the locomotor surface exploited. To investigate these issues, we herein examine the configuration and dimensions of seven species of the gekkotan genus Rhoptropus, and an outgroup taxon, Chondrodactylus bibronii. All of these taxa are rupicolous and the array of rock surfaces exploited by this cluster of taxa is extensive. Our results show that setal field configuration follows a predictable pattern, both from one digit to another within a species, and between homologous digits and anatomical locations between species. One species, Rhoptropus afer, a more terrestrial taxon, exhibits significantly shorter setae and a smaller subdigital pad area than do its congeners, but exhibits the same overall pattern of setal arrangement. Our findings have implications for the understanding of the evolution of adhesive structures, and for the principles used for generating and manufacturing biomimetic artificial microfibrillar arrays.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".