Trilobite ‘pelotons’: possible hydrodynamic drag effects between leading and following trilobites in trilobite queues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Energy saving mechanisms in nature allow following organisms to expend less energy than leaders. Queues, or ordered rows of individuals, may form when organisms exploit the available energy saving mechanism while travelling at near‐maximal sustainable metabolic capacities; compact clusters form when group members travel well below maximal sustainable metabolic capacities. The group size range, given here as the ratio of the difference between the size of the largest and smallest group members, and the size of the largest member (as a percentage), has been hypothesized to correspond proportionately to the energy saving quantity because weaker, smaller, individuals sustain the speeds of stronger, larger, individuals by exploiting the energy saving mechanism (as a percentage). During migration, small individuals outside this range may perish, or form sub‐groups, or simply not participate in migratory behaviour. We approximate drag forces for leading and following individuals in queues of the late Devonian ( c . 370 Ma) trilobite Trimerocephalus chopini . Applying data from literature on Rectisura herculea , a living crustacean, we approximate the hypothetical walking speed and maximal sustainable speeds for T. chopini . Our findings reasonably support the hypothesis that among the population of fossilized queues of T. chopini reported in the literature, trilobite size range was 75%, while the size range within queues was 63%; this corresponds reasonably with drag reductions in following positions that permit c . 61.5% energy saving for trilobites following others in optimal low‐drag positions. We model collective trilobite behaviour associated with hydrodynamic drafting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".