MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964330342 · doi:10.1071/zo04010

Skinks currently assigned to Carlia aerata (Scincidae : Lygosominae) of north-eastern Queensland: a preliminary study of cryptic diversity and two new species

2005· article· en· W1964330342 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Couper, Jessica Worthington Wilmer, Lewis R. Roberts, Andrew P. Amey, George R. Zug

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Zoology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsBarrick Gold (Canada)
FundersSmithsonian Institution
KeywordsBiologySpecies complexEvolutionary biologyPhylogenetic treeGenetic diversitySystematicsGenetic divergenceEcologyZoologyTaxonomy (biology)GeneGeneticsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A preliminary investigation of genetic diversity in Carlia aerata, by sequencing the mitochondrial ND4 gene, revealed the presence of two cryptic species, described herein. The sequence data was added to an existing phylogeny to discern molecular relationships. Interestingly, genetic affinities lie not with C. aerata, the species to which they key. Instead, one has affinities with C. tanneri, the other with C. foliorum. This casts doubt on the validity of morphological characters alone to infer relationships within this genus. Despite low levels of genetic divergence from sister taxa, the new species can be diagnosed from these by morphological characters that exhibit little or no intraspecific variation. The addition of these new species to the gene tree did not enhance resolution of the phylogenetic relationships at the deeper nodes of the Carlia tree. The discovery of these two new cryptic species provides further support for a previously suggested rapid mid-Miocene diversification of Carlia that may have resulted from the successful expansion of a rainforest-dwelling ancestor into the expanding woodlands associated with Miocene climate fluctuations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of ZoologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207