The sclerotic ring of squamates: an evo‐devo‐eco perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sclerotic ring consists of several bones that form in the sclera of many reptiles. This element has not been well studied in squamates, a diverse order of reptiles with a rich fossil record but debated phylogeny. Squamates inhabit many environments, display a range of behaviours, and have evolved several different body plans. Most importantly, many species have secondarily lost their sclerotic rings. This research investigates the presence of sclerotic rings in squamates and traces the lineage of these bones across evolutionary time. We compiled a database on the presence/absence of the sclerotic ring in extinct and extant squamates and investigated the evolutionary history of the sclerotic ring and how its presence/absence and morphology is correlated with environment and behaviour within this clade. Of the 400 extant species examined (59 families, 214 genera), 69% have a sclerotic ring. Those species that do not are within Serpentes, Amphisbaenia, and Dibamidae. We find that three independent losses of the sclerotic ring in squamates are supported when considering both evolutionary and developmental evidence. We also show that squamate species that lack, or have a reduced, sclerotic ring, are fossorial and headfirst burrowers. Our dataset is the largest squamate dataset with measurements of sclerotic rings, and supports previous findings that size of the ring is related to both environment occupied and behaviour. Specifically, scotopic species tend to have both larger inner and outer sclerotic ring apertures, resulting in a narrower ring of bone than those found in photopic species. Non-fossorial species also have a larger sclerotic ring than fossorial species. This research expands our knowledge of these fascinating bones; with further phylogenetic analyses scleral ossicles could become an extremely useful character trait for inferring the behaviour of fossil squamates.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".