Review of the tetrapod skull–neck boundary: implications for the evolution of the atlas–axis complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review describes variation in modern and fossil occiput-atlas-axis complex anatomy of total group Tetrapoda with the aim of documenting the range of structural variation throughout their evolutionary history to establish grounds for comparison of the complex between tetrapod clades. This review reveals that every modern tetrapod has an atlas with morphology unique to its vertebral column that articulates to the skull, composed, typically, of paired neural arch halves and an intercentrum. Maximally complex tetrapod atlantes articulate to paired proatlas halves and are composed of paired neural arch halves, an intercentrum, and a pleurocentrum. The centra may occur as left and right halves but are most often singular elements in adults. Lissamphibians often have an interglenoid tubercle extending anteriorly from their atlas centrum. Stem tetrapods develop a specialised second cervical vertebra, the axis, most often distinguished from its posterior neighbours by an anteriorly oriented odontoid process contributing to the skull-neck joint. An axis is retained in nearly all subsequently diverging tetrapod clades, except for lissamphibians and their closest relatives. Exemplar fossil taxa reveal patterns of atlas-axis evolution throughout the tetrapod lineage. Here, synthesis of osteological data from extinct and extant taxa provides a basis for hypotheses of skull-neck boundary evolution in tetrapods. For example, convergent trends towards fewer separate components in adult tetrapod atlas-axis complexes, except in crocodylians and rhyncocephalians, are illuminated. Further insights into the development of the atlas and axis may help support or refute these hypotheses and will contribute to a more complete understanding of the origin of observed variation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".