Dragon Tails: Convergent Caudal Morphology in Winged Archosaurs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In the tails of dromaeosaurid dinosaurs and rhamphorhynchid pterosaurs, elongate osteological rods extend anteriorly from the chevrons and the prezygapophyses. These caudal rods are positioned in parallel and are stacked dorsoventrally. The fully articulated and three‐dimensionally preserved caudal series of some dromaeosaurid specimens show that individually these caudal rods were flexible, not rigid as previously thought. However, examination of the arrangement of the caudal rods in cross‐section indicates that the combined effect of multiple caudal rods did provide substantial rigidity in the dorsoventral, but not in the lateral, plane. The results of digital muscle reconstructions confirm that dromaeosaurids and rhamphorhynchids also shared greatly reduced caudofemoral muscles in the anterior tail region. The striking similarities between the tails of dromaeosaurids and rhamphorhynchids suggest that both evolved under similar behavioral and biomechanical pressures. Combined with recent discoveries of primitive deinonychosaurs that phylogenetically bracket the evolution of dromaeosaurid caudal rods between two arboreal gliding/flying forms, these results are evidence that the unique caudal morphologies of dromaeosaurids and rhamphorhynchids were both adaptations for an aerial lifestyle.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 teacher head, 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".