Mandibular shape variation in mainland and insular hylobatids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although hylobatids are the most speciose of the living apes, their morphological interspecies and intraspecies variation remains poorly understood. Here, we assess mandibular shape variation in two species of Hylobates, white-handed (Hylobates lar) and black-handed (Hylobates agilis) gibbons. Using 71 three-dimensional landmarks to quantify mandibular shape, interspecies and intraspecies variation and geographic patterns of mandibular shape are examined in a mixed sex sample of adult H. lar and H. agilis through generalized Procrustes analysis, Procrustes analysis of variance, and principal components analysis. We find that relative to H. agilis, H. lar exhibits a higher amount of variation in mandibular shape. Both species demonstrate similar allometric patterns in mandibular shape. We also highlight a geographic pattern in mandibular shape variation. Compared to mainland hylobatids, insular hylobatids have relatively lower, more posteriorly oriented, and anteroposteriorly wider mandibular condyles, with an increased distance between the condyles and the coronoid processes. This geographic pattern could reflect differences in functional demands on the mandible during mastication and/or could be driven by factors often associated with evolutionary pressures of island populations relative to mainland populations. The findings of this study highlight how little is known about Hylobates morphological variation and how important this is for using Hylobates to help interpret the primate fossil record. Understanding interspecific and intraspecific variation in extant primates is vital to interpreting variation in the primate fossil record.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".