Development and evolution of adult feeding structures in Caenogastropods: overcoming larval functional constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparative study of the developing foregut in three species of caenogastropods, including an herbivorous grazer (Lacuna vincta) and two carnivores (Euspira [Polinices] lewisii and Nassarius mendicus), suggests how the specialized adult foregut of a carnivorous neogastropod evolved within a life cycle having a planktotrophic larva. Postmetamorphic feeding structures (buccal cavity and radular sac) in all three species achieve advanced differentiation in the larval stage, permitting juvenile feeding at 3 days postmetamorphosis. Recent phylogenetic hypotheses for the Gastropoda predict that foregut developmental patterns in E. lewisii and N. mendicus are derived, relative to that of L. vincta. In hatching larvae of these three, the anlage of postmetamorphic feeding structures is a small patch of nonciliated cells embedded in the ventral wall of the larval foregut and the patch soon forms an outpocketing. During subsequent morphogenesis, Euspira lewisii and N. mendicus share a developmental novelty that involves semi-isolation of the developing, postmetamorphic buccal cavity and radular sac from the larval foregut and formation of a new, definitive mouth at metamorphosis. Nassarius mendicus, a neogastropod, embellishes this novelty by adding the entire anterior esophagus and valve of Leiblein (de novo structures) to the semi-isolated buccal cavity. Therefore, a valve and long stretch of muscular anterior esophagus, which are necessary for feeding with a pleurembolic proboscis, are preformed in the larval stage of this neogastropod without interfering with larval feeding. The inferred evolutionary events leading to postmetamorphic feeding specialization in N. mendicus are invisible in adults; they require reconstruction from comparative developmental analysis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".