<i>Agraulos ceticephalus</i>and other Cambrian trilobites in the subfamily Agraulinae from Bohemia, Newfoundland and Wales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Cambrian trilobiteAgraulos ceticephalusBarrande, first described from Bohemia, is the type species for the genus and subfamily Agraulinae. That subfamily is here regarded as a ptychoparioid grouping in the family Solenopleuridae, characterized by prominently punctate cephala. In Bohemia, it occurs with, and is related to, specimens of the genus SkreiaspisRůžička, differing mainly in their glabellar shapes and cephalic borders. More‐complete descriptions of their type species are based largely on undistorted museum topotypes and supplementary specimens ofceticephaluscollected from Avalonian Newfoundland and Wales. With such information and the use of Photoshop, a reinterpretation of the original tectonically‐distorted syntypes of ‘A. longicephalus’ from Wales indicates that those specimens cannot be differentiated fromceticephalus. Consequently, Hicks’ species may be regarded as a junior synonym. Additional information derived from recent Welsh collections concerns the hypostome–rostral plate relationship ofceticephalusand the recognition of a ventral plate lying beneath the rostral plate. Non‐syntype Welsh material, subsequently assigned to ‘longicephalus’, includes specimens ofA. lewisisp. nov. with a prominent occipital spine, relatively long genal spines and upstanding thoracic axial spines. Other species ofAgraulosoccur in Newfoundland, viz.,affinis,socialis, ‘sp. nov. 1’ and ‘sp. nov. 2’, marked by differences in their anterior cephalic borders, occipital rings and ornamented thoracic axes. Two species ofSkreiaspis, viz.,punctatissimussp. nov and ‘S. sp. nov. 1’ are recognized in the Newfoundland succession along with two other agraulines,Skehanos quadrangularisWhitfield and ‘Agraulinae gen. nov.’ To demonstrate the significant differences between the biometrics of the external surfaces and their inner parietal moulds/casts, and those of meraspid–holaspid cranidial growth stages between 0.10 and 2.9 cm sagittal length, a suite ofA. socialiscranidia intermixed with some other Newfoundland agraulines of comparable size is illustrated.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".