Assessing the intraspecific osteological variation of the spottail shiner (<scp><i>Hudsonius hudsonius</i></scp>) (Cypriniformes: Leuciscidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hudsonius hudsonius (Cypriniformes: Leuciscidae), commonly known as the spottail shiner, is a small cyprinoid fish species found across much of North America. H. hudsonius has traditionally been regarded as one of the most basal and plesiomorphic species among the notropin fishes, that is, fishes traditionally placed in or associated with the large, polyphyletic genus Notropis, including but not limited to Alburnops, Cyprinella, Ericymba, Lythrurus, Miniellus and Paranonotropis. The basal nature of H. hudsonius has been further corroborated by recent molecular studies. The osteology of notropin fishes has either focused on a specific region of the skeleton, including the cranium, pharyngeal teeth and dental formulae, or the caudal skeleton. Others have aimed to determine evolutionary relationships using osteological characteristics. However, no research has focused on the osteology of H. hudsonius specifically nor emphasized the intraspecific osteology of a single notropin species. Thus, this study aimed to describe and analyse key osteological characters of H. hudsonius, highlighting key osteological variants within and among 15 populations from Alberta, the Northwest Territories, Manitoba and Ontario. Particular attention is given to the elements of the oral jaws, suspensorium, opercular series, branchial apparatus, hyoid region, circumorbital series, pectoral girdle, pelvic girdle, caudal skeleton and skull. My analysis of the osteology of H. hudsonius reveals variation in all examined regions except the pelvic girdle. Regional differentiation between eastern and western populations is especially evident in the degree of fusion of the pectoral girdle, fusion of the parhypural and first hypural of the caudal skeleton and shape of the urohyal. The results of this analysis provide an overview of the osteology of a basal notropin species and highlight which regions are subject to variation. It also raises further questions about the current taxonomic classification of H. hudsonius based on the regional differences observed here.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".