Vocalization by extant nonavian reptiles: A synthetic overview of phonation and the vocal apparatus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among amniote vertebrates, nonavian reptiles (chelonians, crocodilians, and lepidosaurs) are regarded as using vocal signals rarely (compared to birds and mammals). In all three reptilian clades, however, certain taxa emit distress calls and advertisement calls using modifications of regions of the upper respiratory tract. There is no central tendency in either acoustic mechanisms or the structure of the vocal apparatus, and many taxa that vocalize emit only relatively simple sounds. Available evidence indicates multiple origins of true vocal abilities within these lineages. Reptiles thus provide opportunities for studying the early evolutionary stages of vocalization. The early literature on the diversity of form of the laryngotracheal apparatus of reptiles boded well for the study of form-function relationships, but this potential was not extensively explored. Emphasis shifted away from anatomy, however, and centered instead on acoustic analysis of the sounds that are produced. New investigative techniques have provided novel ways of studying the form-function aspects of the structures involved in phonation and have brought anatomical investigation to the forefront again. In this review we summarize what is known about hearing in reptiles in order to contextualize the vocal signals they generate and the sound-producing mechanisms responsible for them. The diversity of form of the sound producing apparatus and the increasing evidence that reptiles are more dependent upon vocalization as a communication medium than previously thought indicates that they have a significant role to play in the understanding of the evolution of vocalization in amniotes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".