Rethinking the evolution of extant sub‐Saharan African suids (Suidae, Artiodactyla)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gongora, J., Cuddahee, R. E., do Nascimento, F. F., Palgrave, C. J., Lowden, S., Ho, S. Y. W., Simond, D., Damayanti, C. S., White, D. J., Tay, W. T., Randi, E., Klingel, H., Rodrigues‐Zarate, C. J., Allen, K., Moran, C. & Larson, G. (2011). Rethinking the evolution of extant sub‐Saharan African suids (Suidae, Artiodactyla). — Zoologica Scripta, 40 , 327–335. Although African suids have been of scientific interest for over two centuries, their origin, evolution, phylogeography and phylogenetic relationships remain contentious. There has been a long‐running debate concerning the evolution of pigs and hogs (Suidae), particularly regarding the phylogenetic relationships among extant Eurasian and African species of the subfamily Suinae. To investigate these issues, we analysed the mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences of extant genera of Suidae from Eurasia and Africa. Molecular phylogenetic analyses revealed that all extant sub‐Saharan African genera form a monophyletic clade separate from Eurasian suid genera, contradicting previous attempts to resolve the Suidae phylogeny. Two major sub‐Saharan African clades were identified, with Hylochoerus and Phacochoerus grouping together as a sister clade to Potamochoerus. In addition, we find that the ancestors of extant African suids may have evolved separately from the ancestors of modern day Sus and Porcula in Eurasia before they colonised Africa. Our results provide a revision of the intergeneric relationships within the family Suidae.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".