Shaving a Shell: Effect of Manipulated Sculpture and Feeding on Shell Growth and Sculpture Development in <i>Nucella lamellosa</i> (Muricidae: Ocenebrinae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastropod shell sculpture offers a novel tool for studying morphological patterning. Existing shell features may be manipulated experimentally to test how alteration affects subsequent shell growth and form. Axial sculpture occurs in many gastropod groups, and spacing of sculpture may be regular or irregular. But how gastropods control sculpture placement during shell growth is unknown. We studied the growth and positioning of axial lamellae in the muricid Nucella lamellosa, and compared these to the superficially similar axial varices seen in other muricids. First, we tested whether the feeding rate had any effect on the rate of addition or positioning of new lamellae. Second, we tested what effect previous shell sculpture had on lamellar placement, and shell growth in general, by removing all shell sculpture and allowing snails to grow over the "shaved" shell surface. Lamellar growth appeared to be relatively plastic; spacing was highly variable both within and among individual snails, and 1-2 weeks were required to complete the addition of a new lamella. Body growth rate was the primary determinant of lamellar growth; past lamellae had no effect on placement of new lamellae or rate of shell length increase. Feeding rate and body size affected only growth in shell length, and had no direct effect on spacing or on the rate of addition of new lamellae. The growth of axial lamellae in N. lamellosa differed from that of varices by exhibiting neither a) regular spacing nor b) a growth hiatus after completion of a lamella. Significantly, despite the obvious impediment of previous sculpture to future shell growth, removal of this sculpture had no observable effect on the rate of body growth or on any aspect of subsequent lamellar growth.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".