Skull ontogeny in<i>Arrhinoceratops brachyops</i>(Ornithischia: Ceratopsidae) and other horned dinosaurs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disentangling ontogenetic from interspecific variation is key to understanding biodiversity in the fossil record, yet information on growth in the ceratopsid subfamily Chasmosaurinae is sparse. Here, we describe the partial skull of a juvenile chasmosaurine, attributed to Arrhinoceratops brachyops, within the context of more mature specimens of this species, to better understand the ontogenetic transformations therein. We show that as A. brachyops matured, the postorbital horncores became longer and shifted from a posterior to an anterior inclination, the delta-shaped frill epiossifications became lower and fused to the underlying frill, and the face became more elongate. In these respects, A. brachyops closely resembled Triceratops, suggesting that these ontogenetic changes may have been common to all long-horned chasmosaurines. However, an event-paired cladistic analysis of Chasmosaurinae using a standardized matrix of 24 developmental characters reveals that the relative timing of ontogenetic events in Arrhinoceratops was more like that of Chasmosaurus, particularly in the relatively late reduction in scalloping around the frill margins. Thus, the ontogenetic similarities between Arrhinoceratops and Triceratops appear to be plesiomorphic, partly related to the retention of the elongate postorbital horncores, which are primitive for Ceratopsidae. This study elucidates the otherwise contentious evolutionary relationships of Arrhinoceratops, and highlights the importance of ontogenetic data for resolving phylogenies when morphological data from adults alone are inadequate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".