Molecular phylogenetics of Erebidae (Lepidoptera, Noctuoidea)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a step towards understanding the higher‐level phylogeny and evolutionary affinities of quadrifid noctuoid moths, we have undertaken the first large‐scale molecular phylogenetic analysis of the moth family Erebidae, including almost all subfamilies, as well as most tribes and subtribes. DNA sequence data for one mitochondrial gene ( COI ) and seven nuclear genes ( EF‐1α , wingless , RpS5 , IDH , MDH , GAPDH and CAD ) were analysed for a total of 237 taxa, principally type genera of higher taxa. Data matrices (6407 bp in total) were analysed by parsimony with equal weighting and model‐based evolutionary methods (maximum likelihood), which revealed a well‐resolved skeleton phylogenetic hypothesis with 18 major lineages, which we treat here as subfamilies of Erebidae. We thus present a new phylogeny for Erebidae consisting of 18 moderate to strongly supported subfamilies: Scoliopteryginae, Rivulinae, Anobinae, Hypeninae, Lymantriinae, Pangraptinae, Herminiinae, Aganainae, Arctiinae, Calpinae, Hypocalinae, Eulepidotinae, Toxocampinae, Tinoliinae, Scolecocampinae, Hypenodinae, Boletobiinae and Erebinae. Where possible, each monophyletic lineage is diagnosed by autapomorphic morphological character states, and within each subfamily, monophyletic tribes and subtribes can be circumscribed, most of which can also be diagnosed by morphological apomorphies. All additional taxa sampled fell within one of the four previously recognized quadrifid families (mostly into Erebidae), which are now found to include two unusual monobasic taxa from New Guinea: Cocytiinae (now in Erebidae: Erebinae) and Eucocytiinae (now in Noctuidae: Pantheinae).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".