The biogeography of Gentoo Penguins (<i>Pygoscelis papua</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gentoo Penguins ( Pygoscelis papua (J.R. Forster 1781)) are defined morphologically as a single species with a northern and southern subspecies. Differences in nuptial displays and particularly mating calls, however, suggest isolation among island archipelagos of different ocean basins. We thus asked whether genetic divergence of populations could be confirmed using molecular markers. A phylogenetic tree was constructed from a sample of 110 Gentoo Penguins and 58 haplotypes from the control region of the mitochondrial DNA. Reanalyses of historical data on morphology were conducted to construct additional phylogenetic trees for comparison. In agreement with differences in mating calls, the phylogenetic tree that was based on mitochondrial DNA showed a deep division between populations in the Indian and Atlantic oceans. The current systematic division into two subspecies based on morphology was not supported. The division between populations in the Indian and Atlantic oceans was great enough to justify taxonomic revision, with at least three distinct clades: two in the respective sub-Antarctic and Antarctic zones of the Atlantic Ocean, and a deeply divergent and unnamed third clade in the sub-Antarctic Indian Ocean. In contrast to more pelagic species like Rockhopper Penguins ( Eudyptes chrysocome (J.R. Forster, 1781)), the restricted coastal foraging ranges of Gentoo Penguins and the distances among isolated oceanic archipelagos could explain the distribution of genetically differentiated populations.
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".