Integrating morphology and mitochondrial DNA for species delimitation within the spruce budworm ( <i>Choristoneura fumiferana</i> ) cryptic species complex (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species in cryptic complexes tend to be very difficult, if not impossible, to identify using morphological characters. One such complex is the spruce budworm ( Choristoneura fumiferana Clemens, 1865) species group, an economically important group of Nearctic forest pests. Morphological, ecological, behavioural and genetic characters have been studied to try to understand the taxonomy of this group better, but diagnostic character states differ in frequency rather than being complete replacements between each species. We used mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), together with a new morphology‐based character system that focuses on forewing colour components, to determine if one or a combination of character sources can be used for species diagnoses within the spruce budworm complex. We characterized 47 forewing morphometric measurements and sequenced a 470 bp region of cytochrome c oxidase I mtDNA for 111 ingroup individuals comprising five taxa within the complex. Larval host association and coloration or adult pheromone attraction were used as the prior method for grouping individuals. Our results showed that linear discriminant analysis of morphometric wing characters gave unique clusters for all species on the first and second canonical axes, except for a partial overlap between C. fumiferana and C. biennis , which are not sympatric in nature. In contrast, mtDNA distinguished C. fumiferana , C. pinus pinus Freeman, 1953 and a group of western species, but the three western species ( C. occidentalis , C. biennis and C. lambertiana Busck, 1915) shared mtDNA haplotypes. On the basis of the linear discriminant analysis of the combined character set, this study supports the application of both morphology and mtDNA within a framework of integrative taxonomy as the most accurate method for species identification. Furthermore, it demonstrates the utility of quantitative colour analysis, which may be particularly helpful for groups in which colour characters are difficult to divide into discrete units due to intergrading hues.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".