† <i>Cryptovaranoides</i> is not a squamate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate reconstruction of the timescale of organismal evolution requires placement of extinct representatives among living branches. In this way, the fossil record has the capacity to revise hypotheses of organismal evolution by producing representatives of clades that far pre-date the age of the clade inferred using phylogenies built from molecular data and previous fossil calibrations. Recently, one fossil with the potential to drastically change current understanding surrounding the timescale of reptile diversification was described from Triassic fissure-fill deposits in the United Kingdom. This taxon, † Cryptovaranoides microlanius , was originally placed deep within the squamate crown clade, suggesting that many lineages of living lizards and snakes must have appeared by the Triassic and implying long ghost lineages that paleontologists and molecular phylogeneticists have failed to detect using all other available data. Our team challenged this identification and instead suggested † Cryptovaranoides had unclear affinities to living reptiles, but a crown-squamate interpretation was later re-iterated by the team that originally described this species. Here, we again challenge the morphological character codings used to support a crown squamate affinity for † Cryptovaranoides microlanius and illustrate several empirical problems with analyses that find this taxon is a crown squamate. Our analyses emphasize the importance of stringency in constructing hypodigms of fossils, particularly when they may be key for proper time calibration of the Tree of Life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".