The Permian reptile <i>Opisthodontosaurus carrolli</i>: a model for acrodont tooth replacement and dental ontogeny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous tooth replacement is common for tetrapods, but some groups of acrodont lepidosaurs have lost the ability to replace their dentition (monophyodonty). Acrodonty, where the tooth attaches to the apex of the jawbone, is an unusual form of tooth attachment that has been associated with the highly autapomorphic condition of monophyodonty. Beyond Lepidosauria, very little is known about the relationship between acrodonty and monophyodonty in other amniotes. We test for this association with a detailed study of the dentition of Opisthodontosaurus, an unusual Early Permian captorhinid eureptile with acrodont dentition. We provide clear evidence, both histological and morphological, that there were regular tooth replacement events in the lower jaw of Opisthodontosaurus, similar to its captorhinid relatives. Thus, our study of the oldest known amniote with an acrodont dentition shows that acrodonty does not inhibit tooth replacement, and that many of the characteristics assigned to lepidosaurian acrodonty are actually highly derived features of lepidosaurs that have resulted secondarily from a lack of tooth replacement. In the context of reptilian dental evolution, we propose the retention of the simple definition of acrodonty, which only pertains to the relative position of the tooth at the apex of the jaw, where the jaw possesses equal lingual and labial walls. This definition of implantation therefore focuses solely on the spatial relationship between the tooth and the jawbone, and separates this relationship from tooth development and replacement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".