Retention of fish-like odontode overgrowth in Permian tetrapod dentition supports outside-in theory of tooth origins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teeth are often thought of as structures that line the margins of the mouth; however, tooth-like structures called odontodes are commonly found on the dermal bones of many Palaeozoic vertebrates including early jawless fishes. ‘Odontode’ is a generalized term for all tooth-like dentine structures that have homologous tissues and development. This definition includes true teeth and the odontodes of early ‘fishes’, which have been recently examined to gain new insights into the still unresolved origin of teeth. Two leading hypotheses are frequently referenced in this debate: the ‘outside-in’ hypothesis, which posits that dermal odontodes evolutionarily migrate into the oral cavity, and the ‘inside-out’ hypothesis, which posits that teeth originated in the oropharyngeal cavity and then moved outwards into the oral cavity. Here, we show that, unlike the well-known one-to-one replacement patterns of marginal dentition, the palatal dentition of the early Permian tetrapods, including the dissorophoid amphibian Cacops and the early reptile Captorhinus , is overgrown by a new layer of bone to which the newest teeth are then attached. This same overgrowth pattern has been well documented in dermal and oral odontodes (i.e. teeth) of early fishes . We propose that this pattern represents the primitive condition for vertebrates and may even predate the origin of jaws. Therefore, this pattern crosses the fish–tetrapod transition, and the retention of this ancestral pattern in the palatal dentition of early terrestrial tetrapods provides strong support for the ‘outside-in’ hypothesis of tooth origins.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".