Phylogenetic analysis of the Rhabdocoela (Platyhelminthes) with emphasis on the Neodermata and relatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phylogenetic systematic analysis of 24 taxa representing the rhabdocoel platyhelminths, based on a suite of 89 morphological characters, produced two equally parsimonious trees, 181 steps long, with a consistency index (CI) of 0.69 and a rescaled consistency index (RCI) of 0.56, differing only with respect to that portion of the tree containing Umagillidae, Acholadidae, Graffillinae, Pseudograffillinae, Pterastericolidae and Hypoblepharinidae. Our results accommodate all previously proposed sister taxa to the Neodermata in a single clade in which ((Dalyelliidae + Temnocephalida) Typhloplanidae) is the sister group of ((Fecampiidae + Urastoma ) ( Udonella ((Aspidogastrea + Digenea) (Monogenea (Gyrocotylidea (Amphilinidea + Eucestoda)))))). Bootstrap and jackknife analyses indicate that the groupings of ((Dalyelliidae + Temnocephalida) Typhloplanidae) and of ((Fecampiidae + Urastoma ) ( Udonella ((Aspidogastrea + Digenea) (Monogenea (Gyrocotylidea (Amphilinidea + Eucestoda)))))) are highly robust, with the latter clade having a CI of 90% and RCI of 82%. Disagreements among previous analyses of these taxa have been due to the influence of missing data for critical characters in key taxa and differences in the taxa analysed, rather than any inherent weakness in the morphological data. Non‐phylogenetic systematic approaches to homology assessment and misconceptions regarding phylogenetic systematic methodology are discussed. Recent analyses combining sequence data with a subset of approximately 60% of the morphological characters should be re‐assessed using the entire morphological database. Even if Udonella is a monogenean, it is most parsimonious to suggest that the common ancestor of the Neodermata had a vertebrate–arthropod two‐host life cycle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".