MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195251656 · doi:10.1111/brv.12788

A review of the osteoderms of lizards (Reptilia: Squamata)

2021· review· en· W3195251656 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine J. Williams, Alexander Kirby, Arsalan Marghoub, Loïc Kéver, Sonya Ostashevskaya‐Gohstand, Sérgio Bertazzo, Mehran Moazen, Arhat Abzhanov, Anthony Herrel, Susan E. Evans, Matt Vickaryous

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersHuman Frontier Science Program
KeywordsSquamataLizardBiologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osteoderms are mineralised structures consisting mainly of calcium phosphate and collagen. They form directly within the skin, with or without physical contact with the skeleton. Osteoderms, in some form, may be primitive for tetrapods as a whole, and are found in representatives of most major living lineages including turtles, crocodilians, lizards, armadillos, and some frogs, as well as extinct taxa ranging from early tetrapods to dinosaurs. However, their distribution in time and space raises questions about their evolution and homology in individual groups. Among lizards and their relatives, osteoderms may be completely absent; present only on the head or dorsum; or present all over the body in one of several arrangements, including non-overlapping mineralised clusters, a continuous covering of overlapping plates, or as spicular mineralisations that thicken with age. This diversity makes lizards an excellent focal group in which to study osteoderm structure, function, development and evolution. In the past, the focus of researchers was primarily on the histological structure and/or the gross anatomy of individual osteoderms in a limited sample of taxa. Those studies demonstrated that lizard osteoderms are sometimes two-layered structures, with a vitreous, avascular layer just below the epidermis and a deeper internal layer with abundant collagen within the deep dermis. However, there is considerable variation on this model, in terms of the arrangement of collagen fibres, presence of extra tissues, and/or a cancellous bone core bordered by cortices. Moreover, there is a lack of consensus on the contribution, if any, of osteoblasts in osteoderm development, despite research describing patterns of resorption and replacement that would suggest both osteoclast and osteoblast involvement. Key to this is information on development, but our understanding of the genetic and skeletogenic processes involved in osteoderm development and patterning remains minimal. The most common proposition for the presence of osteoderms is that they provide a protective armour. However, the large morphological and distributional diversity in lizard osteoderms raises the possibility that they may have other roles such as biomechanical reinforcement in response to ecological or functional constraints. If lizard osteoderms are primarily for defence, whether against predators or conspecifics, then this 'bony armour' might be predicted to have different structural and/or mechanical properties compared to other hard tissues (generally intended for support and locomotion). The cellular and biomineralisation mechanisms by which osteoderms are formed could also be different from those of other hard tissues, as reflected in their material composition and nanostructure. Material properties, especially the combination of malleability and resistance to impact, are of interest to the biomimetics and bioinspired material communities in the development of protective clothing and body armour. Currently, the literature on osteoderms is patchy and is distributed across a wide range of journals. Herein we present a synthesis of current knowledge on lizard osteoderm evolution and distribution, micro- and macrostructure, development, and function, with a view to stimulating further work.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical SocietySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207