AN OVERVIEW OF PREDATION EVIDENCE FOUND ON FOSSIL DECAPOD CRUSTACEANS WITH NEW EXAMPLES OF DRILL HOLES ATTRIBUTED TO GASTROPODS AND OCTOPODS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Predators of extant decapod crustaceans are fairly well known, but unlike many other invertebrate clades, not much is known regarding predation evidence found on fossil decapods. Herein, we provide an overview of such predation and expand upon this through an extensive study of fossil decapod specimens from multiple museum collections. Thus far most examples of predation come from drill holes and stomach contents; bite marks, incisions or irregular holes, and possible regurgitated material are also known. The currently recognized predators of decapods in the fossil record are fish, plesiosaurs, ammonites, octopods, and gastropods. We also provide new evidence of unambiguous drill-hole predation in decapods, based on 33,593 nonmoldic Cenozoic (middle Eocene–Holocene) decapod remains originating from Europe, Asia, and North America, indicating that drilling predation in decapods is more common than currently recognized. Drill holes attributed to octopods (ichnotaxon Oichnus ovalis) and gastropods (O. simplex and O. paraboloides) were found in carapaces and appendages from the Pliocene of the Netherlands, the Pleistocene and Pliocene of the United States (Florida), and the Pleistocene and early Miocene of Japan. Six drill holes attributed to octopods were found in epifaunal and semiburrowing crabs; three drill holes attributed to gastropods were discovered in semiburrowing and epifaunal crabs, and in a burrowing mud shrimp; and the producer of two other drill holes in epifaunal crabs is unknown. Other possible drill holes occur in decapods from the Holocene and early Miocene of Japan and the late Eocene of the United States. Drill-hole predation intensities in decapod faunas by stratigraphic formation are low (≤2.7%), at least in part due to multiple biases such as preservation and molting.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".