The lissamphibian humerus and elbow joint, and the origins of modern amphibians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The origins and evolution of the three major clades of modern amphibians are still a source of controversy, and no general consensus exists as to their relationship to the various known Paleozoic taxa. This may indicate that additional character complexes should be studied to resolve their phylogenetic relationship. The salamander elbow joint has been fundamentally misinterpreted in previous morphological descriptions. In caudates and anurans, both the radius and ulna (fused in anurans) articulate with the characteristically large capitulum (radial condyle), although part of the ulnar articulating surface fits into to the smooth trochlear region. The salamander "ulnar condyle" of previous descriptions is in fact the entepicondyle. The condition seen in batrachians (i.e., salamanders and frogs) may be a lissamphibian synapomorphy because the elbow region of the primitive fossil caecilian Eocaecilia resembles those of frogs and salamanders. In addition to the large and bulbous capitulum, all lissamphibian humeri lack an entepicondylar foramen, and possess a distally pointing entepicondyle, a low and rounded ectepicondyle, and an elongated shaft. These characters are identified in key fossil forms to assess the support for the different hypotheses proposed for the evolutionary origins of lissamphibians. Temnospondyli is the only group of early tetrapods that shows a progressive evolution of lissamphibian traits in the humerus and elbow joint. Furthermore, among Paleozoic taxa, the dissorophoid temnospondyl Doleserpeton annectens is the only taxon that has the full set of humeral features shared by all lissamphibians. These results add support for the theory of a monophyletic origin of lissamphibians from dissorophoidtemnospondyls.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".