The oldest higher true crabs (<scp>C</scp>rustacea: <scp>D</scp>ecapoda: <scp>B</scp>rachyura): insights from the <scp>E</scp>arly <scp>C</scp>retaceous of the <scp>A</scp>mericas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the extensive fossil record of higher crabs (Eubrachyura) from Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic rocks worldwide, their Early Cretaceous occurrences are scarce and fragmentary, obscuring our understanding of their early evolution. Until now, representatives of only two families of eubrachyuran‐like crabs were known from the Early Cretaceous: Componocancridae and Tepexicarcinidae fam. nov., both monospecific lineages from the Albian (~110–100 Ma) of North and Central America, respectively. The discovery of Telamonocarcinus antiquus sp. nov. (Telamonocarcinidae) from the early Albian of Colombia, South America (~110 Ma), increases to three the number of known Early Cretaceous eubrachyuran‐like families. The ages and geographical distributions of the oldest eubrachyuran‐like taxa (i.e. Componocancridae, Telamonocarcinidae and Tepexicarcinidae fam. nov.) suggest that the oldest higher true crabs might have originated in the Americas; that they were already morphologically diverse by the late Early Cretaceous; and that their most recent common ancestor must be rooted in the Early Cretaceous, or even the Late Jurassic.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".