A systematic review of agouti (Dasyproctidae: <i>Dasyprocta</i>) records from the pre‐1492 Lesser Antilles: New perspectives on an introduced commensal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The agouti (Dasyprocta sp.), a medium‐sized neotropical rodent, was introduced by indigenous peoples to the Caribbean islands over a millennium ago and is recorded at archeological sites throughout the Lesser Antilles and southern Caribbean. Like many commensal fauna, these mammals are valuable proxies for deciphering ancient human practices and mobility. However, unsystematic reporting and ambiguous data hinder determination of the agouti's timing of entry, paths of dissemination, distribution, ecological impact, and cultural significance. Here, we present the first systematic review of all published records of which we are aware for pre‐1492 agouti skeletal remains in the Caribbean, totaling 63 sites on 24 islands. On the basis of these data, we address the issue of archeological species attributions in relation to unresolved phylogenetic and taxonomic issues for Dasyprocta spp. In addition, we synthesize findings for agouti distribution, abundance, and chronology of occurrence. Data are consistent with an initial introduction to the northern Lesser Antilles by ca. AD 35 and perhaps as early as ca. 500 BC. While the midden contexts in which agoutis are almost always found affirm their use as food, ethnohistoric records point to the utilization of skeletal remains in ritual and artifact manufacture. This study provides the first region‐wide synthesis of archeological agoutis and highlights the important insights to be gained from such systematic reviews. It is particularly significant for informing the potential ecological impacts of indigenous faunal introductions prior to Columbus's arrival.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".