Dental anatomy of the apex predator <i>Sinraptor dongi</i> (Theropoda: Allosauroidea) from the Late Jurassic of China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dental morphology of the holotype of the theropod Sinraptor dongi from the Jurassic Shishugou Formation of China is comprehensively described. We highlight a combination of dental features that appear to be restricted to Sinraptor: (i) crowns with denticulated mesial and distal carinae extending from the root and an irregular surface texture on the enamel; (ii) a D- to salinon-shaped cross-sectional outline at the crown base in mesialmost teeth; (iii) mesial crowns with mesial carinae spiraling mesiolingually and lingually positioned longitudinal groove adjacent to the mesial carina; and (iv) particularly labiolingually compressed lateral teeth with weakly labially deflected distal carinae, flat to concave basocentral surfaces of the labial margins of the crowns, and horizontally elongated distal denticles showing short to well-developed interdenticular sulci. Using cladistic, multivariate, discriminant, and cluster analyses, we demonstrate that the dentition of Sinraptor is relatively similar to that of ceratosaurids, megalosauroids, and other allosauroids and is particularly close to that of Allosaurus. The dental anatomy of Sinraptor and Allosaurus, which differs mainly in the labiolingual compression of the lateral crowns and in the number of premaxillary teeth, shows adaptations towards a predatory lifestyle, including premaxillary teeth capable of enduring tooth-to-bone contact and crowns with widely separated mesial and distal carinae capable of inflicting widely open wounds.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".