Mosasaurs and snakes have a periodontal ligament: timing and extent of calcification, not tissue complexity, determines tooth attachment mode in reptiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Squamates present a unique challenge to our understanding of dental evolution in amniotes because they are the only extant tooth-bearing group for which a ligamentous tooth attachment is considered to be absent. This has led to the assumption that mammals and crocodilians have convergently evolved a ligamentous tooth attachment, composed of root cementum, periodontal ligament, and alveolar bone, whereas squamates are thought to possess a single bone of attachment tissue that fuses teeth to the jaws. The identity and homology of tooth attachment tissues between squamates, crocodilians, and mammals have thus been a focal point of debate for decades. We provide a novel interpretation of the mineralized attachment tissues in two focal taxa in this debate, mosasaurids and snakes, and compare dental tissue histology with that of the extant crocodilian Caiman sclerops. We identify a periodontal ligament in these squamates that usually exists temporarily as a soft connective tissue anchoring each tooth to the alveolar bone. We also identify two instances where complete calcification of the periodontal ligament does not occur: in a durophagous mosasaur, and in the hinged teeth of fossil and modern snakes. We propose that the periodontal ligament rapidly calcifies in the majority of mosasaurids and snakes, ankylosing the tooth to the jaw. This gives the appearance of a single, bone-like tissue fusing the tooth to the jaw in ankylosed teeth, but is simply the end stage of dental tissue ontogeny in most snakes and mosasaurids.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".