Are Pleopods Just “More Legs”? The Functional Morphology of Swimming Limbs in Eurythenes Gryllus (Amphipoda)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amphipods, like most swimming crustaceans, employ a drag-based mechanism to produce thrust. The propulsors are paddle-shaped pleopods that move parallel to the direction of motion. These paired abdominal limbs generate both the propulsive thrust and the respiratory currents that bathe the thoracic gills. This study addresses the basic kinematics of motion and the pleopodal skeletomusculature of the deep-sea scavenger Eurythenes gryllus. The limb beat cycle consists of a power stroke where the three pleopod pairs, with their setal fan outstretched, swing sequentially through an arc parallel to the body axis, and then return anteriorly in a collapsed and bent configuration. The joint connecting the body to the muscular peduncle is complex, allowing promotion and remotion along the main body axis. Several hard plates for extrinsic muscle attachment are surrounded by arthrodial membrane. The extrinsic musculature is proportioned accordingly, with a large mass of muscles controlling the power stroke and a few long muscles generating the recovery stroke forces. The intrinsic musculature within the peduncle and annular rami serves two functions: (1) many long, thin muscle fibers within the peduncle function as support muscles responsible for shape changes; (2) large, strap-like muscles control flexion for the recovery stroke and abduction-adduction of the exopod for the power stroke. Several ancillary skeletal structures enhance swimming efficiency: reinforcement in the pleonal wall for muscle attachment, coupling hooks between the pleopod pair to effectively create a single paddle, the complementary shapes of the exopod and endopod, and an exopodal hook that facilitates the complete collapse of the pleopods on the recovery stroke. The functional design of the pleopod maximizes efficient recovery stroke motion while still providing strong remotion during the recovery stroke.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".