The lower permian dissorophoid «doleserpeton» (temnospondyli), and the evolution of modern amphibians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The origin and evolution of modern amphibians is still a subject of controversy. The amphibamid temnospondyl Doleserpeton has often been suggested as a close relative of modern amphibians, but the skeletal morphology of this important taxon has never been fully described. In this thesis, a study of the skeletal anatomy of Doleserpeton is presented, and the interrelationships of dissorophoids are discussed. The relationships of modern amphibians and Paleozoic tetrapods are studied using phylogenetic analyses based on both Bayesian inference and parsimony. The skull of Doleserpeton is preserved in such detail that it allows the first description of the inner ear of an amphibamid temnospondyl. It is found to house a posteriorly positioned perilymphatic duct, a feature which is today restricted to amphibians. Evidence for the presence of a frog-like tympanic annulus is also described. During the studies of the limb skeleton of Doleserpeton, it was realized that important features of the forelimb of modern salamanders were misinterpreted in previous anatomical descriptions. Comparisons of the forelimbs of salientians (frogs), caudates (salamanders) and the Lower Jurassic caecilian Eocaecilia reveal important shared derived traits that are also found in Doleserpeton. Humeral evidence also indicates that saltation was an important part of the locomotion of the Lower Triassic salientian Triadobatrachus. Previous phylogenetic analyses are reexamined and numerous problems in previous character coding are revealed. An analysis of the new data collected suggests that modern amphibians may be a monophyletic group closely related to dissorophoid temnospondyls.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".