THE OCCURRENCE OF BONE MODIFICATION FEATURES IN THE CARAPACE AND PLASTRON OF THE EXTANT RED-EARED SLIDER <i>TRACHEMYS SCRIPTA ELEGANS</i> (WIED-NEUWIED, 1839): IMPLICATIONS FOR PALEOECOLOGICAL ANALYSES OF FOSSIL TURTLE ASSEMBLAGES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The carapace and plastron bones of fossil turtles are often characterized by bone modification features such as pits, grooves, and holes. The significance, origin, and frequency of these features remains unclear because they have not been described from the bones of modern turtles. Taxon-specific description and analyses of defleshed turtle shell is essential for assessing the paleoecological significance of bone modification features. This study focuses on bone modification features on carapace and plastron bones of the emydid turtle Trachemys scripta elegans. Four subadult and 14 adult turtle shells were examined for non-ontogenetic features such as pits, grooves, holes, wounds, abrasions, and pathological growth structures. Bone modification features were lacking on subadult specimens but observed on each adult. Shallow, circular to subcircular pits (similar to the ichnotaxon Karethraichnus lakkos), and to a lesser extent pit clusters, are the most common feature noted on T. scripta elegans shells. Although they occur on both the plastron and the carapace, they proved far more common on the lower shell. Sparsely distributed ring-shaped grooves similar to the ichnotaxon Thatchtelithichnus holmani were present on approximately half of the turtle plastra studied. Amorphous surface etching was observed on several turtles, most commonly near the plastron midline (posterior portion of the hyoplastron/anterior portion of the hypoplastron). Pathological responses to these marks are lacking, but were noted on two turtles in response to sustained injuries. The occurrence of circular and subcircular pits, pit clusters, and ring traces on the external surface of every adult turtle analyzed in this study (regardless of sex or geographical occurrence), their discrete size and shape, and the lack of evidence of a systemic pathological response by the host suggests parasites, possibly leeches, as the etiological agent responsible for these features.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".