MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are Toad-Headed Lizards Phrynocephalus przewalskii and P. frontalis (Family Agamidae) the Same Species? Defining Species Boundaries with Morphological and Molecular Data

2011· article· en· W1597716123 on OpenAlexaff
Agnes Gozdzik, Jinzhong Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueRussian Journal of Herpetology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPhylogenetic treeMitochondrial DNAEvolutionary biologyZoologyMantel testCladeGeneticsGenetic variationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toad-headed lizards of the Phrynocephalus przewalskii complex provide a challenging case for delimiting species boundaries. We tested the species status of P. przewalskii and P. frontalis using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence and morphological data. A phylogenetic analysis was applied to the mtDNA data and principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to the morphological data. Furthermore, Mantel tests were used to test congruence between the patristic distance matrix derived from the phylogenetic tree and Euclidean distance matrix derived from PCA. The phylogenetic tree presented deeply diverged discreet clades that largely correspond to the two putative species. Nevertheless, PCA revealed no distinct clustering of individuals. Unique maternal inheritance might explain the discrete mtDNA variations while nuclear gene based morphological variations were continuous. Mantal tests suggested the mtDNA and morphology diverged in concordance; both had evidence of a west to east clinal variation. We conclude that P. frontalis is a synonym of P. przewalskii . Furthermore, the Mantel test is a useful method to compare mtDNA data with morphological data, but insufficient to delimit species boundaries.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRussian Journal of HerpetologySame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207