The gastropod foregut — evolution viewed through a developmental lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparative data on the developing gastropod foregut suggest that this multicomponent feeding complex consists of two developmental modules. Modularity is revealed by delayed development of the buccal cavity and radular sac (“ventral module”) relative to the dorsal food channel (“dorsal module”) in gastropods with feeding larvae compared with those that may have never had a feeding larval stage. If nonfeeding larvae like those of extant patellogastropods and vetigastropods are ancestral for gastropods, then the uncoupling and heterochronic offset of dorsal and ventral foregut modules allowed the post-metamorphic dorsal food channel to be co-opted as a simple but functional esophagus for feeding larvae. Furthermore, by reducing energy cost per ovum, the heterochronic offset may have given mothers the evolutionary option of increasing fecundity or investing in protective egg encapsulation material. A second developmental innovation was spatial separation of the dorsal and ventral foregut modules, as illustrated by distal foregut development in buccinid neogastropods and venom gland development in cone snails. Spatial uncoupling may have enhanced the evolvability of gastropod foreguts by allowing phenotypic variants of ventral module components to be selected within post-metamorphic ecological settings, without needing to be first tested for compatibility with larval feeding. Finally, we describe a case in which foregut modularity has helped facilitate a highly derived life history in which encapsulated embryos ingest nurse eggs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".