A molecular perspective on the evolutionary affinities of an enigmatic neotropical frog, Allophryne ruthveni
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phylogenetic relationships of neobatrachian frogs remain poorly resolved below the subordinal level. The neotropical frog Allophryne ruthveni (Gaige) illustrates the difficulty in evaluating phylogenetic relationships within the Neobatrachia. Since its discovery in 1926, it has been variously placed within five different anuran families: Bufonidae, Leptodactylidae, Centrolenidae, Hylidae and in its own monotypic family, Allophrynidae. Here we examine the evolutionary relationships of Allophryne ruthveni using DNA sequence data from two mitochondrial genes (16S and 12S rRNA). Our analyses suggest that Allophryne ruthveni is most closely allied to the glass frogs (Centrolenidae). Both 12S and combined data partitions support an Allophryne ruthveni–Cochranella midas–Centrolene geckoideum clade, with Allophryne ruthveni basally positioned. Considered alone, analyses of the 16S partition supports the placement of Allophryne ruthveni with the centrolenids only with neighbour-joining analyses. The placement of Allophryne ruthveni with the centrolenids supports Noble's (1931) hypothesis that Allophryne is an edentate centrolenid. More definitive statements of the evolutionary affinities of Allophryne ruthveni in particular, and the Neobatrachia in general, await greater sampling of taxa and both molecular and phenotypic (e.g. morphological and karyotypic) characters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".