Karyotype Evolution of Shrew Moles (Soricomorpha: Talpidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Chinese long-tailed mole (Scaptonyx fusicaudus) closely resembles American (Neurotrichus gibbsii) and Japanese (Dymecodon pilirostris and Urotrichus talpoides) shrew moles in size, appearance, and ecological habits, yet it has traditionally been classified either together with (viz subfamily Urotrichinae) or separately (tribe Scaptonychini) from the latter genera (tribe Urotrichini sensu lato). We explored the merit of these competing hypotheses by comparing the differentially stained karyotypes of S. fusicaudus and N. gibbsii with those previously reported for both Japanese taxa. With few exceptions, diploid chromosome number (2n = 34), fundamental autosomal number (FNa = 64), relative size, and G-banding pattern of S. fusicaudus were indistinguishable from those of D. pilirostris and U. talpoides. In fact, only chromosome 15 differed significantly between these species, being acrocentric in D. pilirostris, subtelocentric in U. talpoides, and metacentric in S. fusicaudus. This striking similarity is difficult to envisage except in light of a shared common ancestry, and is indicative of an exceptionally low rate of chromosomal evolution among these genera. Conversely, the karyotype of N. gibbsii deviates markedly in diploid chromosome and fundamental autosomal number (2n = 38 and FNa = 72, respectively), morphology, and G-banding pattern from those of Scaptonyx and the Japanese shrew moles. These differences cannot be explained by simple chromosomal rearrangements, and suggest that rapid chromosomal reorganization occurred in the karyotype evolution of this species, possibly due to founder or bottleneck events.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".