Thecodont tooth attachment and replacement in bolosaurid parareptiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Permian bolosaurid parareptiles are well-known for having complex tooth crowns and complete tooth rows in the jaws, in contrast to the comparatively simple teeth and frequent replacement gaps in all other Paleozoic amniotes. Analysis of the specialized dentition of the bolosaurid parareptiles Bolosaurus from North America and Belebey from Russia, utilizing a combination of histological and tomographic data, reveals unusual patterns of tooth development and replacement. The data confirm that bolosaurid teeth have thecodont implantation with deep roots, the oldest known such example among amniotes, and independently evolved among much younger archosauromorphs (including dinosaurs and crocodilians) and among synapsids (including mammals). High-resolution CT scans were able to detect the density boundary between the alveolar bone and the jawbone, as confirmed by histology, and revealed the location and size of developing replacement teeth in the pulp cavity of functional teeth. Evidence provided by the paratype dentary of Belebey chengi indicates that replacement teeth are present along the whole tooth row at slightly different stages of development, with the ontogenetically more developed teeth anteriorly, suggesting that tooth replacement was highly synchronized. CT data also show tooth replacement is directly related to the presence of lingual pits in the jaw, and that migration of tooth buds occurs initially close to these resorption pits to a position immediately below the functional tooth within its pulp cavity. The size and complex shape of the replacement teeth in the holotype of Bolosaurus grandis indicate that the replacement teeth can develop within the pulp cavity to an advanced stage while the previous generation remains functional for an extended time, reminiscent of the condition seen in other amniotes with occluding dentitions, including mammals.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".