Inference about Monophyly of the Family Oedipodidae and the Classification of Subfamilies Based on 16S rDNA Sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of grasshoppers in the family Oedipodidae are the famous agriculture pests in China.However monophyly and the relationships among the subfamilies within this family are unclear up to now.Here the phylogeny of the Oedipodidae was reconstructed based on 16S rDNA sequence fragments by using Mekongiella kingdoni and Atractomorpha sinensis as outgroups under weighted MP, NJ and Bayesian criteria.The 408 bp fragments of mitochondrial 16S rRNA gene were sequenced for 15 species from 4 subfamilies of the family Oedipodidae, and the homologous sequences of other 15 species of grasshoppers were downloaded from the GenBank data library.The numbers of transitions and transversions among pairwise comparisons of the 16S fragments were respectively plotted against percentage sequence differences.Saturation of transitions was discovered, and transversions were not saturated with the increase of percentage sequence difference in the plots.All the individuals of the Oedipodidae excluding Trilophidia annulata were gathered together in the three trees.Our results are very different from the traditionary taxonomy of the Oedipodidae including 4 subfamilies.The Bryodemellinae is not supported as a subfamily, and neither Locustinae nor Oedipodinae are supported as a monophyletic group in this study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".