Genetic population structure of buckeye butterflies ( <i>Junonia</i> ) from <scp>A</scp> rgentina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There are nine named species of buckeye butterflies (genus Junonia H übner) in the W estern H emisphere. There is considerable geographic variation within Junonia species, and possible ongoing hybridization between species, suggesting that Junonia may be a ring species, but also making this a very difficult group to define taxonomically. We tried to determine whether two forms of Junonia from A rgentina – conventionally referred to as Junonia genoveva hilaris C . & R. F elder, the light buckeye butterfly, and Junonia evarete flirtea ( F abricius), the dark buckeye butterfly – were genetically distinct species or simply colour forms of a single species using morphological characters, mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I ( COI ) DNA barcodes, nuclear wingless (wg) locus DNA sequences, and anonymous nuclear R andomly A mplified F ingerprints ( RAF ). Phylogenetic analysis of COI identified two distinct mitochondrial haplotypes that differ by about 4% sequence divergence; one confined to light‐coloured Junonia specimens and one shared between some light‐coloured Junonia and all of dark‐coloured Junonia specimens. Analysis of nuclear wingless sequences revealed 32 alleles among 22 Junonia specimens and showed significant genetic differentiation between light‐coloured and dark‐coloured Junonia . Analysis of RAF genotypes suggests that there are actually three genetically distinct Junonia populations in A rgentina: two with light wing coloration, and one with dark wing coloration. Genetic evidence of recent hybridization among these populations was also observed, consistent with the ring species hypothesis. Careful comparisons of morphological characters between A rgentinian Junonia and Junonia species from elsewhere in S outh A merica suggests that the two light‐coloured populations correspond to J. genoveva and either a genetically disparate population of the same species or an undescribed cryptic Junonia species, The dark‐coloured population may correspond to J. wahlbergi B révignon. Our data suggest that COI DNA barcodes by themselves are not very useful for studying Junonia taxonomy, population structure or evolution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".