Computational biomechanical analyses demonstrate similar shell-crushing abilities in modern and ancient arthropods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biology of the American horseshoe crab,Limulus polyphemus, is well documented—including its dietary habits, particularly the ability to crush shell with gnathobasic walking appendages—but virtually nothing is known about the feeding biomechanics of this iconic arthropod.Limulus polyphemusis also considered the archetypal functional analogue of various extinct groups with serial gnathobasic appendages, including eurypterids, trilobites and other early arthropods, especiallySidneyia inexpectansfrom the mid-Cambrian (508 Myr) Burgess Shale of Canada. Exceptionally preserved specimens ofS. inexpectansshow evidence suggestive of durophagous (shell-crushing) tendencies—including thick gnathobasic spine cuticle and shelly gut contents—but the masticatory capabilities of this fossil species have yet to be compared with modern durophagous arthropods. Here, we use advanced computational techniques, specifically a unique application of 3D finite-element analysis (FEA), to model the feeding mechanics ofL. polyphemusandS. inexpectans: the first such analyses of a modern horseshoe crab and a fossil arthropod. Results show that mechanical performance of the feeding appendages in both arthropods is remarkably similar, suggesting thatS. inexpectanshad similar shell-crushing capabilities toL. polyphemus. This biomechanical solution to processing shelly food therefore has a history extending over 500 Myr, arising soon after the first shell-bearing animals. Arrival of durophagous predators during the early phase of animal evolution undoubtedly fuelled the Cambrian ‘arms race’ that involved a rapid increase in diversity, disparity and abundance of biomineralized prey 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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".