Parallel Saltational Evolution of Ultrafast Movements in Snapping Shrimp Claws
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do stunning functional innovations evolve from unspecialized progenitors? This puzzle is particularly acute for ultrafast movements of appendages in arthropods as diverse as shrimps [1], stomatopods [2], insects [3-6], and spiders [7]. For example, the spectacular snapping claws of alpheid shrimps close so fast (∼0.5 ms) that jetted water creates a cavitation bubble and an immensely powerful snap upon bubble collapse [1]. Such extreme movements depend on (1) an energy-storage mechanism (e.g., some kind of spring) and (2) a latching mechanism to release stored energy quickly [8]. Clearly, rapid claw closure must have evolved before the ability to snap, but its evolutionary origins are unknown. Unearthing the functional mechanics of transitional stages is therefore essential to understand how such radical novel abilities arise [9-11]. We reconstructed the evolutionary history of shrimp claw form and function by sampling 114 species from 19 families, including two unrelated families within which snapping evolved independently (Alpheidae and Palaemonidae) [12, 13]. Our comparative analyses, using micro-computed tomography (microCT) and confocal imaging, high-speed video, and kinematic experiments with select 3D-printed scale models, revealed a previously unrecognized "slip joint" in non-snapping shrimp claws. This slip joint facilitated the parallel evolution of a novel energy-storage and cocking mechanism-a torque-reversal joint-an apparent precondition for snapping. Remarkably, these key functional transitions between ancestral (simple pinching) and derived (snapping) claws were achieved by minute differences in joint structure. Therefore, subtle changes in form appear to have facilitated wholly novel functional change in a saltational manner. VIDEO ABSTRACT.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".