Morphological Diversity and Evolution of Jaw Morphologies in Zeiform Fishes (Teleostei, Paracanthopterygii)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zeiformes (dories, tinselfishes, and oreos) are primarily benthopelagic acanthomorph fishes, distributed between 50 and 1000 m depth on continental slopes and on flanks of oceanic islands and seamounts. Among the interesting morphological adaptations of zeiform fishes are their unique and highly protrusible jaws involving premaxillae with long ascending processes and a four-bar linkage, including mobile palatines that pivot on their posterior articulation. This adaptation for increased jaw protrusion has enabled zeiform fishes to capture elusive prey more efficiently and is arguably a major factor in their morphological diversity and evolutionary success. This study examines the evolution of zeiform jaw morphologies using 3D landmark-based multivariate morphometrics as well as phylomorphospace analysis. Results show that the descendants of the zeiform ancestor branched rapidly early in their history, retaining conservative jaw morphologies during this early branching, but subsequently strongly diverged in many of the resulting lineages. Results from this study are compared with earlier research based on overall body form, demonstrating that morphological variation within Zeiformes arose along at least two distinct trajectories: body form and jaw morphology. Variation among genera in body form is not associated with variation among the same genera in jaw morphology, and vice versa. Hypotheses to explain the apparent decoupling of body shape and jaw morphology are addressed along with avenues for further study to better understand the morphological evolution of these iconic fishes.
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 | 0.000 | 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".