Six million years of vole dental evolution shaped by tooth development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Morphological change occurs over macroevolutionary timescales under the action of natural selection and genetic drift combined with developmental processes shaping organogenesis. Although determining their relative weight is made difficult by discrepancies between paleontological and neontological data, mammalian tooth morphology may bridge the gap between fossil record and laboratory observations. Fossils indicate that mammals have frequently diversified after evolving molars bearing more cusps, while developmental biology shows these emerge through the iterative signaling of enamel knots. However, this theoretical evo-devo model of mammalian tooth evolution has not been tested with empirical data from both fossils and laboratory experiments. In doing so, we identify a shared developmental basis for the convergent, ratcheted evolution of increasingly complex molars in arvicoline rodents (voles, lemmings, muskrats). Longer, narrower molars lead to more cusps throughout development and deep time, suggesting that tooth development directed morphological evolution. Both the arvicoline fossil record and vole tooth development show slower transitions toward the highest cusp counts. This pattern suggests that the developmental processes fueling the evolution of increasingly complex molars may also limit the potential for further complexity increases. Integrating paleontological and developmental data shows that long-term evolutionary trends can be accurately and mostly explained by the simple tinkering of developmental pathways.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".