Deconstructing the Gestalt: New concepts and tests of homology, as exemplified by a re‐conceptualization of “microstomy” in squamates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Snakes-a subset of lizards-have traditionally been divided into two major groups based on feeding mechanics: "macrostomy," involving the ingestion of proportionally large prey items; and "microstomy," the lack of this ability. "Microstomy"-considered present in scolecophidian and early-diverging alethinophidian snakes-is generally viewed as a symplesiomorphy shared with non-snake lizards. However, this perspective of "microstomy" as plesiomorphic and morphologically homogenous fails to recognize the complexity of this condition and its evolution across "microstomatan" squamates. To challenge this problematic paradigm, we formalize a new framework for conceptualizing and testing the homology of overall character complexes, or "morphotypes," which underlies our re-assessment of "microstomy." Using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scans, we analyze the morphology of the jaws and suspensorium across purported "microstomatan" squamates (scolecophidians, early-diverging alethinophidians, and non-snake lizards) and demonstrate that key components of the jaw complex are not homologous at the level of primary character state identity across these taxa. Therefore, rather than treating "microstomy" as a uniform condition, we instead propose that non-snake lizards, early-diverging alethinophidians, anomalepidids, leptotyphlopids, and typhlopoids each exhibit a unique and nonhomologous jaw morphotype: "minimal-kinesis microstomy," "snout-shifting," "axle-brace maxillary raking," "mandibular raking," and "single-axle maxillary raking," respectively. The lack of synapomorphy among scolecophidians is inconsistent with the notion of scolecophidians representing an ancestral snake condition, and instead reflects a hypothesis of the independent evolution of fossoriality, miniaturization, and "microstomy" in each scolecophidian lineage. We ultimately emphasize that a rigorous approach to comparative anatomy is necessary in constructing evolutionary hypotheses that accurately reflect biological reality.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".