Ecologically‐related variation of digit morphology in <i>Cyrtodactylus</i> (Gekkota, Squamata) reveals repeated origins of incipient adhesive toepads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Exploitation of different locomotor substrates in different ecological niches has driven the evolution of specialized morphological structures, and similar ecological demands, such as the structure of the microhabitat, often lead to convergent or parallel evolution. The evolution of adhesive toepads in geckos remains understudied because of the paucity of phylogenetically‐informed investigations of candidate clades exhibiting purported incipient expression of these (i.e. species having evolved some, but not all, parts of the complex adhesive system of pad‐bearing geckos). Using Cyrtodactylus, a speciose genus with well‐established ecotypes, we tested the hypothesis that microhabitats that require more climbing will lead to the acquisition of incipient adhesive morphology. We measured subdigital scale area, a proxy for adhesive toepad evolution, and quantified subdigital scale shape for 77 of the 354 described species, including at least one representative of each ecotype. Subdigital scale area increased from terrestrial through generalist and saxicoline (rock‐dwelling) to arboreal ecotypes, with subdigital scale shape evolving from ancestral conditions for padless lizards to lateromedially expanded lamella‐like scales only in the arboreal ecotypes. This significant link between phenotype and environment supports the contention that scansorial, and particularly arboreal, Cyrtodactylus ecotypes have evolved incipiently expressed adhesive toepads. This highlights the suitability of this genus as a model system for studying the ecology and evolution of adhesive toepads as well as being a promising candidate for research on adaptive radiations. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
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".