Diversification in Adelomyia hummingbirds follows Andean uplift
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Andes are known to have influenced speciation patterns in many taxa, yet whether species diversification occurred simultaneously with their uplift or only after uplift was complete remains unknown. We examined both the phylogenetic pattern and dates of branching in Adelomyia hummingbirds in relation to Andean uplift to determine whether diversification coincides with the chronological phases of the uplift or with recent climatic fluctuations after Andean formation. Results suggest that the genus Adelomyia originated in the central Andes in the Miocene and was found to be comprised of six deeply divergent phylogroups dating between 3.5 and 6 Ma. The most basal splits in the tree, corresponding to the most southerly distributed of the six phylogroups, diverged in the late Miocene, whereas the northern phylogroups originated during the early-to-mid-Pliocene, when the northern Andes reached heights sufficient to support Adelomyia populations. Although we provide evidence for a southern origin for the group, the subsequent diversification of the northern phylogroups did not strictly follow the hypothesized south-to-north orogeny of the Andes. Further genetic structure within phylogroups may have resulted from Pleistocene climate fluctuations after the onset of the six lineages during the Mio-Pliocene. We explore the processes that promoted diversification in the Andes and suggest that in at least some groups, divergence was coupled to Andean orogeny.
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".