Recent insights into the morphological diversity in the amniote primary and secondary palates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assembly of the upper jaw is a pivotal moment in the embryonic development of amniotes. The upper jaw forms from the fusion of the maxillary, medial nasal, and lateral nasal prominences, resulting in an intact upper lip/beak and nasal cavities; together called the primary palate. This process of fusion requires a balance of proper facial prominence shape and positioning to avoid craniofacial clefting, whilst still accommodating the vast phenotypic diversity of adult amniotes. As such, variation in craniofacial ontogeny is not tolerated beyond certain bounds. For clarity, we discuss primary palatogenesis of amniotes into in two categories, according to whether the nasal and oral cavities remain connected throughout ontogeny or not. The transient separation of these cavities occurs in mammals and crocodilians, while remaining connected in birds, turtles and squamates. In the latter group, the craniofacial prominences fuse around a persistent choanal groove that connects the nasal and oral cavities. Subsequently, all lineages except for turtles, develop a secondary palate that ultimately completely or partially separates oral and nasal cavities. Here, we review the shared, early developmental events and highlight the points at which development diverges in both primary and secondary palate formation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".