Genetic homogeneity based on skin histocompatibility and the evolution and systematics of parthenogenetic <i>Cnemidophorus laredoensis</i> (Sauria: Teiidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The parthenogenetic whiptail lizard Cnemidophorus laredoensis of Texas and México was derived from one or more hybrids between the gonochoristic species Cnemidophorus gularis and Cnemidophorus sexlineatus. We analyzed clonal structure in C. laredoensis on the basis of histocompatibility reactions to reciprocal skin grafting. Individuals of C. laredoensis rejected skin grafts from both parental species and from a hybrid between C. gularis and an undescribed parthenogenetic species. One lizard initially identified as C. laredoensis was found to be a triploid C. laredoensis × C. gularis hybrid, based on its histocompatibility reactions. The hybrid accepted grafts from individuals of C. laredoensis; however, C. laredoensis rejected grafts from this and a second hybrid. Seventeen individuals of C. laredoensis from six sites located throughout the range of the species in Texas were fully histocompatible, based on a large number of reciprocal skin grafts. Only three individuals of C. laredoensis from three sites donated grafts to other individuals of the species, but they were unable to host all or most of the reciprocal grafts. The skin histo compatibility among 17 individuals of C. laredoensis from six widely separated geographic sites points to a high level of genetic homogeneity in the species due to clonal descent from one parthenogenetic C. gularis × C. sexlineatus hybrid. Unidirectional rejection of skin grafts by three lizards could be a result of postformational mutations within this lineage, though this suggestion is open to question. The name C. laredoensis should be restricted to populations in Texas and México that are diagnostically identical with the parthenogenetic species described from two sites in Laredo, Webb County, Texas, in 1973.
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".