Cryptic biodiversity and phylogenetic relationships revealed by DNA barcoding of Oriental black flies in the subgenus<i>Gomphostilbia</i>(Diptera: Simuliidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the medical, economic, and ecological importance of black flies relies on correct identification of species. However, traditional taxonomy of black flies is impeded by a high degree of morphological uniformity, especially the presence of cryptic biodiversity, historically recognized by details of chromosomal banding patterns. We assess the utility of DNA barcoding, based on cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (COI) sequences, for identifying 13 species of Oriental black flies in the subgenus Gomphostilbia. Samples of larvae fixed in Carnoy's solution were used to gather molecular and chromosomal data from the same individual. We found that larvae refrigerated in Carnoy's fixative for as long as 11 years can be used for DNA study. Levels of intraspecific genetic divergence, based on the Kimura-2 parameter, range from 0% to 9.28%, with a mean of 2.75%, whereas interspecific genetic divergence ranges from 0.34% to 16.05%. Values of intraspecific and interspecific genetic divergence overlap in seven species owing to incomplete lineage sorting and imperfect taxonomy, implying that DNA barcoding to identify these species will be ambiguous. Despite a low level of success, we found that DNA barcoding is useful in revealing cryptic biodiversity, potentially facilitating traditional taxonomy. Phylogenetic analyses indicate that species groups currently recognized on morphological criteria are not monophyletic, suggesting a need to reevaluate the classification of the subgenus Gomphostilbia.
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) | 0.000 | 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".