Skeletal elements within teleost eyes and a discussion of their homology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scleral ossicles and scleral cartilages form part of the craniofacial skeleton of many vertebrates. Some vertebrates, including all birds and most reptiles, but excluding most mammals, have scleral cartilages as well as scleral ossicles supporting their eyes. The teleost equivalent of these elements has received little attention in the literature. From radiographic and whole-mount analyses of over 400 individuals from 376 teleost species, we conclude that the teleost scleral skeletal elements (ossicles and cartilage) differ significantly from those of reptiles (including birds). Scleral ossicles in teleosts have different developmental origins, different positions within the eyeball, and different relationships with the scleral cartilaginous element than those in reptiles. From whole-mount staining of a growth series of four species of teleost (Danio rerio, Salmo salar, Esox lucius, and Alosa pseudoharengus), we interpret the development of these elements and show that they arise from within an Alcian blue-staining cartilaginous ring that develops around the eye earlier in development. We present possible scenarios on the evolution of these scleral skeletal elements from a common gnathostome ancestor, and consider that teleost scleral skeletal elements may not be homologous to those in reptiles. Our study indicates that homology cannot be assumed for these elements, despite the fact that they share the same name, scleral ossicles.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".