First μ‐CT‐based 3D reconstruction of a dipteran larva—the head morphology of <i>protanyderus</i> (tanyderidae) and its phylogenetic implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The larval head of Protanyderus was examined and documented using innovative techniques, with emphasis on internal structures. A chart listing all head muscles of dipteran larvae and other holometabolan groups is presented in the Supporting Information. The results are compared to conditions found in other nematoceran lineages. The larval head of Protanyderus is characterized mainly by plesiomorphic character states such as the complete and largely exposed head capsule, the long coronal suture, V-shaped frontal sutures, lateral antennal insertion areas, a transverse labrum, a nearly horizontal plane of mandibular movements, mandibles lacking a movable distal part, a mesal hook and mesal or distal combs, separated maxillary endite lobes, a comparatively complete array of muscles, and a brain only partly located within the head capsule. An anteriorly toothed hypostomal plate and dense labral brushes of microtrichiae are also likely groundplan features of Diptera. The pharyngeal filter is a possible apomorphy of Diptera excl. Deuterophlebiidae (or Deuterophlebiidae + Nymphomyiidae). The messors have also likely evolved early in the dipteran crown group but are absent in the groundplan. The phylogenetic interpretation of externolateral plates with growth lines is ambiguous. Autapomorphies of Tanyderidae are differences between the third and fourth instar larvae, the roof-like extension above the antennal insertion area, the dorsal endocarina, and the posterodorsal internal ridge. The phylogenetic position of Tanyderidae is controversial, but features of the larval head do not support a proposed sistergroup relationship between Tanyderidae and Psychodidae. Both groups differ in many features of the larval head, and we did not identify a single potential synapomorphy. Larval characters alone are insufficient for a reliable phylogenetic reconstruction, though they vary greatly and apparently contain phylogenetic information. The evaluation of these features in the context of robust molecular phylogenies will be a sound basis for the reconstruction of complex evolutionary scenarios for the megadiverse Diptera.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".