Phylogeny of cockroaches (Insecta, Dictyoptera, Blattodea), with placement of aberrant taxa and exploration of out‐group sampling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We addressed the phylogeny of cockroaches using DNA sequence data from a broad taxon sample of Dictyoptera and other non‐endopterygotan insect orders. We paid special attention to several taxa in which relationships are controversial, or where no molecular evidence has been used previously: Nocticolidae, a family of small, often cave‐dwelling cockroaches, has been suggested to be the sister group of the predaceous Mantodea or of the cockroach family Polyphagidae; Lamproblatta , traditionally placed in Blattidae, has recently been given family status and placed as sister to Polyphagidae; and Saltoblattella montistabularis Bohn, Picker, Klass & Colville, a jumping cockroach, which has not yet been included in any phylogenetic studies. We used mitochondrial ( COI + COII and 16S ) and nuclear ( 18S and 28S ) genes, and analysed the data using Bayesian inference (BI) and maximum likelihood (ML). Nocticolidae was recovered as sister to Polyphagidae. Lamproblatta was recovered as sister to Blattidae, consistent with the traditional placement (not based on phylogenetic analysis). However, because of the limited support for this relationship and conflict with earlier morphology‐based phylogenetic hypotheses, we retain Lamproblattidae. S. montistabularis was consistently placed as sister to Ectobius sylvestris Poda (Blaberoidea: Ectobinae), indicating that the saltatorial hindlegs of this genus are a relatively recent adaptation. Isoptera was placed within Blattodea as sister to Cryptocercidae. Nocticolidae + Polyphagidae was sister to Isoptera + Cryptocercidae, and Blaberoidea was sister to the remaining Blattodea.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".