Using experimental decay of modern forms to reconstruct the early evolution and morphology of fossil enteropneusts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Decay experiments are becoming a more widespread tool in evaluating the fidelity of the fossil record. Character interpretations of fossil specimens stand to benefit from an understanding of how decay can result in changes in morphology and, potentially, total character loss. We performed a decay experiment for the Class Enteropneusta to test the validity of anatomical interpretations of the Burgess Shale enteropneust Spartobranchus tenuis and to determine how the preservation of morphological features compares with the sequence of character decay in extant analogues. We used three species of enteropneust ( Saccoglossus pusillus , Harrimania planktophilus , and Balanoglossus occidentalis ) representing the two major families of Enteropneusta. Comparisons between decay sequences suggest that morphological characters decay in a consistent and predictable manner within Enteropneusta, and do not support the hypothesis of stemward slippage. The gill bars and nuchal skeleton were the most decay resistant, whereas the gill pores and pre-oral ciliary organ were unequivocally the most decay prone. Decay patterns support the identification of the nuchal skeleton, gill bars, esophageal organ, trunk, and proboscis in Spartobranchus tenuis and corroborate a harrimaniid affinity. Bias due to the taphonomic loss of taxonomically informative characters is unlikely. The morphologically simple harrimaniid body plan can be seen, therefore, to be plesiomorphic within the enteropneusts. Discrepancies between the sequence of decay in a laboratory setting and fossil preservation also exist. These discrepancies are highlighted not to discredit the use of modern decay studies but rather to underline their non-actualistic nature. Paleoenvironmental variables besides decay, such as the timeframe between death and early diagenesis as well as postmortem transport, are discussed relative to decay data. These experiments reinforce the strength of a comprehensive understanding of decay sequences as a benchmark against which to describe fossil taxa and understand the conditions leading to fossilization.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".