Taxonomic, Phylogenetic, and Morphological Diversity of Anomodonts (Tetrapoda, Therapsida)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anomodonts are a group of non-mammalian synapsids (“mammal-like reptiles”) that represents the dominant herbivores of their time. Their great taxonomic and morphological diversity, unparalleled by any other clade of Permian-Triassic terrestrial tetrapods, is well documented by a cosmopolitan fossil record. In addition, anomodonts survived the most severe extinction event in Earth’s history at the end of the Permian and experienced a second diversification in the Triassic. Thus, they are an ideal clade to investigate macroevolutionary patterns and play an important role in evaluating the impact of the end-Permian extinction on the terrestrial realm.\nThis work combines descriptive, phylogenetic, and quantitative approaches to study evolutionary patterns of anomodonts with special focus on diversity patterns through time. A taxonomic revision of the Late Permian dicynodont genus Emydops reflects the necessity for a solid taxonomic basis for diversity studies. The description of a new species of this genus is combined with a discussion of dental variability and pathology in dicynodont anomodonts. A detailed description of the postcranial anatomy of the basal anomodont Suminia reveals new insights into the early evolution of anomodonts and therapsids in general. Several derived features, in particular in the autopodium, are unique to Suminia and together with a comparative morphometric analysis indicate grasping abilities of this taxon and the earliest evidence for arboreality in the vertebrate fossil record. The cranial anatomy of the Triassic dicynodont Kombuisia is restudied and a phylogenetic evaluation of the survivorship of anomodonts across the Permian-Triassic boundary reveals more surviving lineages than previously recognized. A review of anomodont-bearing tetrapod faunas forms the basis for a faunal similarity analysis that reveals stratigraphic as well as geographic patterns in faunal groupings. The taxonomic diversity of anomodonts reflects three diversifications and subsequent extinctions in the early Middle Permian, the Early Triassic and the mid-late Triassic.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".