A phylogenetic test of multiple proposals for the origins of the East Indies coral reef biota
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim We analysed data on Indo‐Pacific coral reef taxa to test four mechanisms proposed for the origins of the biodiversity centre in the East Indies Triangle: (1) the centre of origin hypothesis, (2) the centre of accumulation hypothesis, (3) the centre of overlap hypothesis, and (4) the bioaccumulation hypothesis. Location The Indian and western Pacific oceans. Methods The data set consisted of eight clades of fishes, four of corals and one of molluscs, consisting of a total of 95 species, with 72 informative nodes, in 29 areas. We used phylogenetic analysis for comparing trees (PACT) to reconstruct reticulate area relationships. Results An analysis using PACT produced very little congruence between area relationships among the histories of the taxa examined. Only two sets of two taxa each showed substantial congruence; several other taxa showed partial congruence. Main conclusions Despite numerous ‘explanatory’ claims for the incredible biodiversity of the marine macrofauna of the East Indies Triangle, the patterns obtained here did not accord with any of the hypotheses proposed. It is possible that, with the addition of more taxa, additional patterns would emerge. Much more systematic work within the East Indies is required to resolve this problem.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".