A system to decipher the origins and relationships of all arthropod outgrowths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Arthropods (insects, “crustaceans”, myriapods, and chelicerates) display a fascinating diversity of ectodermal structures like plates, horns, helmets, knobs, carapaces, mimicry outgrowths, and wings. The origins and relationships of these structures has tantalized researchers for over a century: did these structures arise de novo in each lineage, or do they emerge from shared, ancestral primordia present in some or even all arthropods? One way to begin answering this is to assess the position and context of these structures on arthropod bodies: do these structures emerge from proximal embryonic leg segments that were converted into the body wall, or do they represent dorsal, non-leg-derived structures? Here, the expression of pannier , araucan , and drumstick – genes previously shown to distinguish proximal leg segments in crustaceans and insects – are examined in a chelicerate representative, the tarantula Acanthoscurria . This gene expression comparison, together with over a century of gene functional, morphological, embryological, and paleontological data, suggests that all arthropod leg segments correspond to each other in a one-to-one fashion, but that in many arthropod lineages, the base of the ancestral leg in the embryo flattens and expands to form the body wall of the adult. This would mean that many arthropod outgrowths which appear to stand on the lateral body wall, such as wings, tergal plates, and gin traps, are derived from the ancestral/embryonic leg base, and likely arose from shared, ancestral primordia present on this leg base in all arthropods. The analysis detailed here means that a simple three- or four-gene in situ expression experiment with pannier , araucan , and drumstick can elucidate the homologies of any arthropod ectodermal structure of interest, including beetle horns, treehopper helmets, and more.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".