Rethinking thecodonty: the influence of two centuries of comparative dental anatomy on our understanding of tooth evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
'Thecodont' refers to teeth implanted in sockets within the jaw, a condition traditionally associated with living mammals and crocodylians, which also coincidentally have teeth attached by ligaments to the socket walls (gomphosis). For over a century, the bony periodontium of many other amniotes has been described as a single tissue, 'bone of attachment', causing confusion over dental tissue homology. The conventional definitions of 'thecodonty' exclude species with fused teeth ('ankylothecodonts'), implying a fundamental difference between mammals, crocodylians and most other vertebrates. However, the stereotypically 'thecodont' attachment tissues have been discovered in representatives of all major amniote clades, showing that gomphosis and ankylosis likely stem from heterochronic changes in the timing and extent of cementum and alveolar bone mineralization. This challenges (i) previous hypotheses regarding the evolution of the amniote periodontium, (ii) the 'bone of attachment' paradigm, and (iii) the significance of 'thecodonty'. We suggest a new nomenclatural approach that incorporates recent histological and evolutionary research and divides thecodonty into anatomical categories to clarify their origin and evolution. We propose the terms anisothecodont and isothecodont to denote, respectively, asymmetric and symmetric implantation of teeth in their sockets. Regardless of the geometry of the connection, we propose using ankylosis and gomphosis to denote the mode of tooth attachment.
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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".