A molecular phylogeny of <i>Eumorpha</i> ( <scp>L</scp> epidoptera: <scp>S</scp> phingidae) and the evolution of anti‐predator larval eyespots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many insects possess conspicuous external circular ring markings that resemble the eye of a vertebrate. These ‘eyespots’ typically function to startle or otherwise deter predators, but few studies have examined how eyespots have evolved. We study the evolution of the posterior larval eyespot in the charismatic N ew W orld hawkmoth genus Eumorpha . While Eumorpha has a range of posterior larval eyespot shapes and sizes, little is known of how this trait has evolved because phylogenetic relationships of Eumorpha remain largely unknown. In this study, we included 62 individuals from 23 of 26 described Eumorpha species, and sequenced four genes ( CAD , EF ‐ 1α , W ingless and COI ), totaling 3773 base pairs. Maximum likelihood and B ayesian phylogenetic methods produced largely congruent trees with well‐supported relationships. Our analyses reveal that Eumorpha probably had an ancestor with a posterior larval eyespot and that the eyespot was subsequently lost in at least three lineages. Eumorpha appears to have originated in C entral and S outh A merica and expanded its distribution to N orth A merica.
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".