Tooth attachment and pleurodont implantation in lizards: Histology, development, and evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Squamates present a unique challenge to the homology and evolution of tooth attachment tissues. Their stereotypically pleurodont teeth are fused in place by a single "bone of attachment", with seemingly dubious homology to the three-part tooth attachment system of mammals and crocodilians. Despite extensive debate over the interpretations of squamate pleurodonty, its phylogenetic significance, and the growing evidence from fossil amniotes for the homology of tooth attachment tissues, few studies have defined pleurodonty on histological grounds. Using a sample of extant squamate teeth that we organize into three broad categories of implantation, we investigate the histological and developmental properties of their dental tissues in multiple planes of section. We use these data to demonstrate the specific soft- and hard-tissue features of squamate teeth that produce their disparate tooth implantation modes. In addition, we describe cementum, periodontal ligaments, and alveolar bone in pleurodont squamates, dental tissues that were historically thought to be restricted to extant mammals and crocodilians. Moreover, we show how the differences between pleurodonty and thecodonty do not relate to the identity of the tooth attachment tissues, but rather the arrangements of homologous tissues around the teeth.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".