Phylogeny of the genus <i>Scathophaga</i> (Diptera: Scathophagidae) inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scathophaga stercoraria has been used for a large number of studies in animal ecology and evolution. Morphological phylogenetic work on the relationships among flies of the family Scathophagidae in general, and the genus Scathophaga in particular, has led to limited or incomplete conclusions. We addressed these relationships by sequencing 810 base pairs (bp) from the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) gene and 738 bp of the mitochondrial cytochrome b (Cyt b) gene in 16 species of Scathophagidae. Phylogenetic analysis of these two protein-coding genes allows us to resolve relatively well the relationships within the genus Scathophaga, using both separate and combined (COI + Cyt b) data. Most of the phylogenetic trees generated by our data support the following relationships: (((S. analis + S. inquinata) + S. lutaria) + S. cineraria + (S. taeniopa + S. suilla + S. incola) + S. furcata + S. tropicalis). The most noteworthy findings are that (i) S. obscura and S. tinctinervis, which were formerly placed in the genus Coniosternum, form a sibling species cluster; (ii) S. taeniopa and S. suilla, which are morphologically very similar species, are clearly distinct taxa; (iii) S. analis, considered a doubtful species in the Catalogue of Palearctic Diptera, could be a synonym of S. inquinata; and (iv) the South American S. tropicalis and the Old World S. stercoraria are not sister-species.
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".