Morphospace occupation in thalattosuchian crocodylomorphs: skull shape variation, species delineation and temporal patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Skull shape variation in thalattosuchians is examined using geometric morphometric techniques in order to delineate species, especially with respect to the classification of Callovian species, and to explore patterns of disparity during their evolutionary history. The pattern of morphological diversity in thalattosuchian skulls was found to be very similar to modern crocodilians: the main sources of variation are the length and the width of the snout, but these broad changes are correlated with size of supratemporal fenestra and frontal bone, length of the nasal bone, size of the orbit and premaxilla and position of the narial opening. Patterns of shape variation, in combination with discrete‐state morphology and stratigraphic and geographic range data were used to distinguish nine species of teleosaurid and 14 species of metriorhynchid, with the four currently recognized Callovian species being split into eight. Metriorhynchids were found to be more disparate from the average shape of morphospace than teleosaurids. However, short‐snouted metriorhynchids and long‐snouted teleosaurids showed the greatest amount of disparity with respect to snout morphotypes, indicating that each group tended to explore opposite areas of morphospace. Phylogeny was found to have a moderate influence on the pattern of morphospace occupation in metriorhynchids, but little effect in teleosaurids suggesting that other factors or constraints control the pattern of skull shape variation in thalattosuchians. A comparison of thalattosuchians with dyrosaur/pholidosaurids shows that thalattosuchians have a unique skull morphology, implying that there are multiple ways to construct a ‘long snout’. Moreover, the skull geometry of the problematic speciesPelagosaurus typuswas found to converge on the teleosaurid area of morphospace. Finally, the temporal distribution of thalattosuchian species and morphotypes demonstrate a clear and highly correlated relationship with sea level curves and mass extinction events through the Jurassic and the Early Cretaceous.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".