Taxonomic utility of isolated ankylosaurian dinosaur teeth using traditional and geometric morphometrics with implications for ankylosaur paleoecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The presence of a basal cingulum, fluting, and overall size have been used to differentiate nodosaurid and ankylosaurid teeth for decades. The taxonomic utility of tooth morphology in ankylosaurs, however, has not been quantitatively tested. In addition, new phylogenetic hypotheses recognize four ankylosaur families (Panoplosauridae, Polacanthidae, Struthiosauridae, and Ankylosauridae), rather than the traditional nodosaurid–ankylosaurid dichotomy. Understanding ankylosaur tooth variation could better help identify taxa with ambiguous phylogenetic affinities or allow isolated teeth to test paleoecological questions such as a potential extirpation of mid-Cretaceous ankylosaurids from Laramidia. We analyzed a large sample of ankylosaur teeth using traditional and geometric morphometrics and investigated the utility of size and the presence of a cingulum and fluting for differentiating ankylosaur teeth. Morphometric analyses show that “nodosaurids” had the greatest variation in tooth shape and size. Panoplosauridae and Struthiosauridae account for a large amount of “nodosaurid” variation, whereas basal ankylosaurs, Polacanthidae, and Ankylosauridae share a similar restricted morphospace. Teeth with a crown base length or height over 10 mm are found only in panoplosaurids, struthiosaurids, and Peloroplites , but smaller sizes are found in all clades. A basal cingulum and fluting are associated with Ankylosauridae and Panoplosauridae. Linear discriminant analyses could accurately identify only between 50% and 75% of the teeth in our sample; thus, they should be used in conjunction with size and discrete traits when identifying isolated teeth. With these findings, caution should be used when attempting to use isolated ankylosaur teeth in broader paleoecological questions, and reclassification of museum collections should be undertaken.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".