MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1531786222 · doi:10.1111/syen.12062

Signal through the noise? Phylogeny of the <scp>T</scp> achinidae ( <scp>D</scp> iptera) as inferred from morphological evidence

2014· article· en· W1531786222 on OpenAlexaff
Pierfilippo Cerretti, James E. O’Hara, Denis Wood, Hiroshi Shima, Diego J. Inclán, John O. Stireman

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Entomology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect behavior and control techniques
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsParaphylyBiologyMonophylyZoologyPhylogeneticsSubfamilySystematicsCladisticsPhylogenetic treeEvolutionary biologyCladeTaxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The oestroid family T achinidae represents one of the most diverse lineages of insect parasitoids. Despite their broad distribution, diversity and important role as biological control agents, the phylogeny of this family remains poorly known. Here, we review the history of tachinid systematics and present the first quantitative phylogenetic analysis of the family based on morphological data. Cladistic analyses were conducted using 135 morphological characters from 492 species belonging to 180 tachinid genera, including the four currently recognized subfamilies ( D exiinae, E xoristinae, P hasiinae, T achininae) and all major tribes. We used characters of eggs, first‐instar larvae and adults of both sexes. We examined the effects of implied weighting by reanalysing the data with varying concavity factors. Our analysis generally supports the subfamily groupings D exiinae + P hasiinae and T achininae + E xoristinae, with only the E xoristinae and the P hasiinae reconstructed as monophyletic assemblages under a wide range of weighting schemes. Under these conditions, the D exiinae, which were previously considered a well‐established monophyletic assemblage, are reconstructed as being paraphyletic with respect to the P hasiinae. The T achininae are reconstructed as a paraphyletic grade from which the monophyletic E xoristinae arose. The E xoristinae are reconstructed as a monophyletic lineage, but phylogenetic relationships within the subfamily are largely unresolved. We further explored the evolution of oviposition strategy and found that the oviparous groups are nested within ovolarviparous assemblages, suggesting that ovipary may have evolved several times independently from ovolarviparous ancestors. This counterintuitive pattern is a novel hypothesis suggested by the results of this analysis. Finally, two major patterns emerge when considering host associations across our phylogeny under equal weights: (i) although more than 60% of tachinids are parasitoids of L epidoptera larvae, none of the basal clades is unambiguously associated with L epidoptera as a primitive condition, suggesting that tachinids were slow to colonize these hosts, but then radiated extensively on them; and (ii) there is general agreement between host use and monophyly of the major lineages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations79
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic EntomologySame topicInsect behavior and control techniquesFrench-language works237,207