A critical appraisal of appendage disparity and homology in fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fishes are both extremely diverse and morphologically disparate. Part of this disparity can be observed in the numerous possible fin configurations that may differ in terms of the number of fins as well as fin shapes, sizes and relative positions on the body. Here, we thoroughly review the major patterns of disparity in fin configurations for each major group of fishes and discuss how median and paired fin homologies have been interpreted over time. When taking into account the entire span of fish diversity, including both extant and fossil taxa, the disparity in fin morphologies greatly complicates inferring homologies for individual fins. Given the phylogenetic scope of this review, structural and topological criteria appear to be the most useful indicators of fin identity. We further suggest that it may be advantageous to consider some of these fin homologies as nested within the larger framework of homologous fin‐forming morphogenetic fields. We also discuss scenarios of appendage evolution and suggest that modularity may have played a key role in appendage disparification. Fin modules re‐expressed within the boundaries of fin‐forming fields could explain how some fins may have evolved numerous times independently in separate lineages (e.g., adipose fin), or how new fins may have evolved over time (e.g., anterior and posterior dorsal fins, pectoral and pelvic fins). We favour an evolutionary scenario whereby median appendages appeared from a unique field of competence first positioned throughout the dorsal and ventral midlines, which was then redeployed laterally leading to paired appendages.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".