Osteology of the cranium and Weberian apparatus of African catfish families (Teleostei: Ostariophysi: Siluriformes) with an assessment of Palaeogene genera
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the vast majority of fossil catfish material is isolated elements such as fin spines, a number of fossil catfishes (Siluriformes) have been named based on articulated crania from Palaeogene formations of Africa. The fossil taxa from marine sediments have been assigned to the extant marine family Ariidae, or have been assumed to have washed into marine sediments from freshwater habitats. The ability to assess the relationships of these fossils without reference to the nature of the geological sediments may provide insight into the history of these families. Most of the taxonomic work on the 11 catfish families found in Africa has focused on soft-tissues or DNA, which is problematic for the fossil material. Here we provide osteological features to distinguish families of African catfishes; eight of the families that are likely to be found in fossiliferous deposits can be distinguished based on a combination of skull features including the morphology of the cranial fontanelle, mesethmoid, and dermal ornamentation. We reassess the familial placement of the Palaeogene catfishes. We find that †Eomacrones wilsoni, from the Palaeocene of Nigeria, belongs in Bagridae s.s. This confirms that bagrids were in Africa much earlier than the Miocene. Because this catfish comes from Palaeocene marine sediments, the biogeographic history of Bagridae needs to be reassessed to consider marine dispersal in this taxon.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".