Evolution of median fin patterning and modularity in living and fossil osteichthyans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Morphological and developmental similarities, and interactions among developing structures are interpreted as evidences of modularity. Such similarities exist between the dorsal and anal fins of living actinopterygians, on the anteroposterior axis: (1) both fins differentiate in the same direction [dorsal and anal fin patterning module (DAFPM)], and (2) radials and lepidotrichia differentiate in the same direction [endoskeleton and exoskeleton module (EEM)]. To infer the evolution of these common developmental patternings among osteichthyans, we address (1) the complete description and quantification of the DAFPM and EEM in a living actinopterygian (the rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss) and (2) the presence of these modules in fossil osteichthyans (coelacanths, lungfishes, porolepiforms and 'osteolepiforms'). In Oncorhynchus, sequences of skeletal elements are determined based on (1) apparition (radials and lepidotrichia), (2) chondrification (radials), (3) ossification (radials and lepidotrichia), and (4) segmentation plus bifurcation (lepidotrichia). Correlations are then explored between sequences. In fossil osteichthyans, sequences are determined based on (1) ossification (radials and lepidotrichia), (2) segmentation, and (3) bifurcation of lepidotrichia. Segmentation and bifurcation patterns were found crucial for comparisons between extant and extinct osteichthyan taxa. Our data suggest that the EEM is plesiomorphic at least for actinopterygians, and the DAFPM is plesiomorphic for osteichthyans, with homoplastic dissociation. Finally, recurrent patterns suggest the presence of a Lepidotrichia Patterning Module (LPM).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".