MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Molecular systematics of flyingfishes (Teleostei: Exocoetidae): evolution in the epipelagic zone

2010· article· de· W1536784168 on OpenAlexaff
Eric A. Lewallen, Robert L. Pitman, Shawna Kjartanson, Nathan R. Lovejoy

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Journal of the Linnean Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsAecom (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMonophylyPhylogenetic treeMolecular phylogeneticsEvolutionary biologyPhylogeneticsSystematicsPelagic zoneGenusZoologyEcomorphologyEcologyHabitatCladeTaxonomy (biology)GeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The flyingfish family Exocoetidae is a diverse group of marine fishes that are widespread and abundant in tropical and subtropical seas. Flyingfishes are epipelagic specialists that are easily distinguished by their enlarged fins, which are used for gliding leaps over the surface of the water. Although phylogenetic hypotheses have been proposed for flyingfish genera based on morphology, no comprehensive molecular studies have been performed. In the present study, we describe a species-level molecular phylogeny for the family Exocoetidae, based on data from the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene (1137 bp) and the nuclear RAG2 gene (882 bp). We find strong support for previous morphology-based phylogenetic hypotheses, as well as the monophyly of most currently accepted flyingfish genera. However, the most diverse genus Cheilopogon is not monophyletic. Using our novel flyingfish topology, we examine previously proposed hypotheses for the origin and evolution of gliding. The results support the progressive transition from two-wing to four-wing gliding. We also use phylogenetic approaches to test the macroecological effects of two life history characters (e.g. egg buoyancy and habitat) on species range size in flyingfishes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations40
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicIchthyology and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207