Comparative morphology of snake (Squamata) endocasts: evidence of phylogenetic and ecological signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain endocasts obtained from computed tomography (CT) are now widely used in the field of comparative neuroanatomy. They provide an overview of the morphology of the brain and associated tissues located in the cranial cavity. Through anatomical comparisons between species, insights on the senses, the behavior, and the lifestyle can be gained. Although there are many studies dealing with mammal and bird endocasts, those performed on the brain endocasts of squamates are comparatively rare, thus limiting our understanding of their morphological variability and interpretations. Here, we provide the first comparative study of snake brain endocasts in order to bring new information about the morphology of these structures. Additionally, we test if the snake brain endocast encompasses a phylogenetic and/or an ecological signal. For this purpose, the digital endocasts of 45 snake specimens, including a wide diversity in terms of phylogeny and ecology, were digitized using CT, and compared both qualitatively and quantitatively. Snake endocasts exhibit a great variability. The different methods performed from descriptive characters, linear measurements and the outline curves provided complementary information. All these methods have shown that the shape of the snake brain endocast contains, as in mammals and birds, a phylogenetic signal but also an ecological one. Although phylogenetically related taxa share several similarities between each other, the brain endocast morphology reflects some notable ecological trends: e.g. (i) fossorial species possess both reduced optic tectum and pituitary gland; (ii) both fossorial and marine species have cerebral hemispheres poorly developed laterally; (iii) cerebral hemispheres and optic tectum are more developed in arboreal and terrestrial species.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".