<i>Captorhinus magnus</i>, a new captorhinid (Amniota: Eureptilia) from the Lower Permian of Oklahoma, with new evidence on the homology of the astragalus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The new species of single tooth-rowed captorhinid reptile Captorhinus magnus n. sp. from the Lower Permian fissure fillings at Richards Spur, Oklahoma differs from Captorhinus aguti in body size and dental and femoral morphology. Linear measurements of fully mature C. magnus elements range in size from 1.5 to 2.3 times as great as those of C. aguti, and the proximal articular surface of the femur, which is convex in C. aguti, is concave throughout ontogeny. C. magnus possesses ogival cheek teeth aligned in a single row, indicating that ogival dentition can no longer be considered unique to C. aguti. A phylogenetic analysis of captorhinid interrelationships indicates that C. aguti and C. magnus form a clade that possesses a sister-group relationship with Captorhinus laticeps. Incompletely ossified astragali referred to C. magnus provide unequivocal evidence that the astragalus of Captorhinus formed through the fusion of three, originally separate ossifications, the tibiale, intermedium, and proximal centrale, rather than from a single ossification center. At the Richards Spur locality, C. magnus is the most abundant Captorhinus species produced from the deeper, stratigraphically lower sediments of the quarry. It is rare, however, in the uppermost, presumably younger deposits, where C. aguti represents the most numerous Richards Spur captorhinid.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".