Molecular data resolves relationships within Heteroceridae (Coleoptera: Dryopoidea)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although most authors have recognized five or fewer genera in the Heteroceridae, the most recent revision divided the heterocerids into 19 genera. Under this system most males can be identified to genus level based on genital morphology, but clearly females cannot be identified to genus level by this method. We conducted the first phylogenetic analysis of the family using separate and combined 28S and EF‐1α sequence data, with the specific aim of testing generic limits and determining whether former family classifications are natural. We found that Tropicus Pacheco forms a strongly supported sister group to all other Heteroceridae. Augyles s.l. Schiödte (monophyly unresolved) is nested between Tropicus and a large terminal clade of four monophyletic species groups of Heterocerus s.l. Fabricius, which is consistent with trends in morphology and geography. The synonymy of North American Lapsus tristis (Mannerheim) and European Heterocerus fenestratus Thunberg is supported. Tests comparing tree topologies, along with strong evidence that many of the proposed genera are polyphyletic, indicate that the more recent generic circumscriptions are generally unnatural, with the exception of Tropicus , which forms a highly supported clade in all our analyses. We propose that the traditional classification of heterocerids, consisting of the four genera Augyles , Heterocerus , Micilus Mulsant & Ray and Elythomerus Waterhouse, plus Tropicus , is the most appropriate for the family. Molecular dating analyses suggest that vicariance played a major role in diversification, with the major clades of Heteroceridae corresponding to continental distributions and an apparent radiation of Heterocerus s.l. in the early Palaeogene period. Behavioural evidence suggesting a possible role for sexual selection during heterocerid evolution is discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".