The evolution of the amphibian lateral line system and its bearing on amphibian phylogeny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In modern amphibians that are aquatic the lateral line system is organized, by order, as follows: caecilians have electroreceptive ampullary organs and single rows of mechanoreceptive neuromast organs; generalized anurans have single rows of neuromasts that divide in a transverse plane to form secondary neuromasts or stitches, they do not have ampullary organs; generalized urodeles have ampullary organs, transverse stitches, and double or triple rows of neuromasts. Fossil evidence indicates that early amphibians had both ampullary organs and single rows of neuromasts embedded in bone. With time, receptors became epidermal in all three orders. Modern caecilians have retained the primitive receptor arrangement. I propose that the common ancestor of anurans and urodeles had transverse stitches, and that this character allies these two groups. Subsequent to the anuranurodele split, anurans lost their ampullary organs, perhaps concomitant with developing specializations for herbivory. Urodeles developed orthogonal neuromast couplets und triplets. In modern anurans und urodeles, transverse stitches are correlated with pond dwelling, while ampullary organs are correlated with carnivory, suggesting that the anuran-urodele ancestor(s) was a (were) pond-dwelling carnivore(s).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".