Osteological differences between two sympatric forms of bottlenose dolphins (genus <i>Tursiops</i>) in Chinese waters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although there has been extensive research on bottlenose dolphins (genus Tursiops), much controversy over the classification within this genus still exists. Even though many morphological variants occur, the prevailing view is for a single species, Tursiops truncatus (Montagu, 1821). To evaluate this view, two sympatric forms of bottlenose dolphins inhabiting Chinese waters were examined using multivariate statistical analyses of osteological data for two meristic and 18 cranial morphometric characters from 71 specimens. Cluster and principal components analyses revealed clear osteological separation of the two forms. Furthermore, the distributions of the total number of vertebrae and several proportions of cranial characters were non‐overlapping between the two forms. These results provided strong evidence that the two sympatric forms of Tursiops in Chinese waters are isolated reproductively and do not support the current view of a monotypic genus. Classification functions of a discriminant analysis and a key of several characters were developed to help researchers identify unassigned specimens. Provisional names (T. truncatus and T. aduncus) were suggested, but a formal taxonomic revision of this genus is still required. However, regardless of the nomenclature, immediate amendments to all present wildlife conservation legislation are strongly urged.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".