A large new leanchoiliid from the <scp>B</scp>urgess <scp>S</scp>hale and the influence of inapplicable states on stem arthropod phylogeny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Characterized by atypical frontalmost appendages, leanchoiliids are early arthropods whose phylogenetic placement has been much debated. Morphological interpretations have differed, some of which concern critical characters such as the number of eyes and head appendages, but methodological approaches also have diverged. Here, we describe a new leanchoiliid, Yawunik kootenayi gen. et sp. nov., based on 42 specimens from the newly discovered Marble Canyon locality of the Burgess Shale (Kootenay National Park, British Columbia; middle Cambrian). This new morphotype demonstrates the presence of a four‐segmented head in leanchoiliids, along with two small antero‐median eyes in addition to lateral eyes. Yawunik is characterized by a 12‐segmented trunk and a carinate, lanceolate telson adorned with minute spines. The ‘great appendages’ of the animal bear teeth on their two distal rami, which would have enhanced their ability to grasp prey. Attitudes of specimens, resulting from burial at multiple aspects of bedding, suggest the ‘great appendages’ were flexible and capable of antero‐posterior rotation. We also discuss the nature of intersegmental tissues and filaments present within the ‘great appendages’. Our phylogenetic analyses extend the monophyly of leanchoiliids to include Haikoucaris and Yohoia in a new clade, the Cheiromorpha nom. nov. (within Heptopodomera nom. nov.). Other nodes are poorly resolved unless implied weights are used, and in this case, the topology is critically sensitive to the coding prerogative of inapplicable states (NAs). Both the traditional ‘Arachnomorpha’ hypothesis (NAs as additional states) and the more recently favoured ‘Artiopoda + Crustacea’ (NAs as uncertainties) were obtained using the same data set and outgroup. This result stresses, first, the historical importance of polarization over data content in scenarios of early arthropod evolution, and second, a pressing need to investigate the impacts of coding inapplicables, especially given the inflating effect of implied weights.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".