Phylogenetic relationships within Serpulidae (Sabellida, Annelida) inferred from molecular and morphological data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed phylogenetic relationships within Serpulidae (including Spirorbinae) using parsimony and Bayesian analyses of 18S rDNA, the D1 and D9−D10 regions of 28S rDNA, and 38 morphological characters. In total, 857 parsimony informative characters were used for 31 terminals, 29 serpulids and sabellid and sabellariid outgroups. Following ILD assessment the two sequence partitions and morphology were analysed separately and in combination. The morphological parsimony analysis was congruent with the results of the 2003 preliminary analysis by Kupriyanova in suggesting that a monophyletic Serpulinae and Spirorbinae form a clade, while the remaining serpulids form a basal grade comprising what are normally regarded as Filograninae. Bremer support values were, however, quite low throughout. In contrast, the combined analyses of molecular and morphological data sets provided highly resolved and well‐supported trees, though with some conflict when compared to the morphology‐only analysis. Spirorbinae was recovered as a sister group to a monophyletic group comprising both ‘filogranin’ taxa ( Salmacina , Filograna , Protis , and Protula ) and ‘serpulin’ taxa such as Chitinopoma , Metavermilia , and Vermiliopsis . Thus the traditionally formulated subfamilies Serpulinae and Filograninae are not monophyletic. This indicates that a major revision of serpulid taxonomy is needed at the more inclusive taxonomic levels. We refrain from doing so based on the present analyses since we feel that further taxon sampling and molecular sequencing are required. The evolution of features such as the operculum and larval development are discussed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".