Anatomy and phylogenetic value of the mandibular and coronoid canals and their associated foramina in proboscideans (Mammalia)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Characters associated with the mandibular canal are differently distributed amongst proboscidean lineages and provide useful information on the systematics and relationships of proboscideans. The aim of this paper is to describe the pattern of the mandibular canal and its associated foramina in proboscideans in order to fully appreciate the extent of interspecific variation of these structures within the group and to discuss its systematic and phylogenetic value. Outgroup comparison indicates that the condition presented by the basal proboscidean Phosphatherium is morphotypic for proboscideans. Primitive proboscidean characters are: the low position of the mandibular foramen, and its crescent-shaped outline, the occurrence of a coronoid foramen (canal), the occurrence of two lateral mental foramina, the posterior one at the level of (or slightly behind) the posterior margin of the symphysis, the anterior one in a more distal position, the absence of a medial mental foramen (MMF), the mandibular canal set just below the tooth row. The occurrence of a single lateral mental foramen may represent a shared derived character of Daouitherium, Numidotherium, and Barytherium. A unique derived feature of the Elephantinae mandible is the occurrence of a medial mental foramen on the medial side of the incisive part of the mandible. MMFs have never been observed in other proboscideans excluding elephantines. The very high frequency of MMFs observed in Mammuthus meridionalis-Mammuthus trogontherii-Mammuthus primigenius (>93 per cent of the studied specimens) could be considered a synapomorphy of this group. (C) 2010 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2011, 161, 391-413. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2010.00637.x
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".