Dental patterning in the earliest sharks: Implications for tooth evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Doliodus problematicus is the oldest known fossil shark-like fish with an almost intact dentition (Emsian, Lower Devonian, c. 397Ma). We provide a detailed description of the teeth and dentition in D. problematicus, based on tomographic analysis of NBMG 10127 (New Brunswick Museum, Canada). Comparisons with modern shark dentitions suggest that Doliodus was a ram-feeding predator with a dentition adapted to seizing and disabling prey. Doliodus provides several clues about the early evolution of the "shark-like" dentition in chondrichthyans and also raises new questions about the evolution of oral teeth in jawed vertebrates. As in modern sharks, teeth in Doliodus were replaced in a linguo-labial sequence within tooth families at fixed positions along the jaws (12-14 tooth families per jaw quadrant in NBMG 10127). Doliodus teeth were replaced much more slowly than in modern sharks. Nevertheless, its tooth formation was apparently as highly organized as in modern elasmobranchs, in which future tooth positions are indicated by synchronized expression of shh at fixed loci within the dental epithelium. Comparable dental arrays are absent in osteichthyans, placoderms, and many "acanthodians"; a "shark-like" dentition, therefore, may be a synapomorphy of chondrichthyans and gnathostomes such as Ptomacanthus. The upper anterior teeth in Doliodus were not attached to the palatoquadrates, but were instead supported by the ethmoid region of the prechordal basicranium, as in some other Paleozoic taxa (e.g., Triodus, Ptomacanthus). This suggests that the chondrichthyan dental lamina was originally associated with prechordal basicranial cartilage as well as jaw cartilage, and that the modern elasmobranch condition (in which the oral dentition is confined to the jaws) is phylogenetically advanced. Thus, oral tooth development in modern elasmobranchs does not provide a complete developmental model for chondrichthyans or gnathostomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".