DNA barcodes affirm that 16 species of apparently generalist tropical parasitoid flies (Diptera, Tachinidae) are not all generalists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many species of tachinid flies are viewed as generalist parasitoids because what is apparently a single species of fly has been reared from many species of caterpillars. However, an ongoing inventory of the tachinid flies parasitizing thousands of species of caterpillars in Area de Conservación Guanacaste, northwestern Costa Rica, has encountered >400 species of specialist tachinids with only a few generalists. We DNA-barcoded 2,134 flies belonging to what appeared to be the 16 most generalist of the reared tachinid morphospecies and encountered 73 mitochondrial lineages separated by an average of 4% sequence divergence. These lineages are supported by collateral ecological information and, where tested, by independent nuclear markers (28S and ITS1), and we therefore view these lineages as provisional species. Each of the 16 apparently generalist species dissolved into one of four patterns: (i) a single generalist species, (ii) a pair of morphologically cryptic generalist species, (iii) a complex of specialist species plus a generalist, or (iv) a complex of specialists with no remaining generalist. In sum, there remained 9 generalist species among the 73 mitochondrial lineages we analyzed, demonstrating that a generalist lifestyle is possible for a tropical caterpillar parasitoid fly. These results reinforce the emerging suspicion that estimates of global species richness are likely underestimates for parasitoids (which may constitute as much as 20% of all animal life) and that the strategy of being a tropical generalist parasitic fly may be yet more unusual than has been envisioned for tachinids.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".