Barcoding Beetles: A Regional Survey of 1872 Species Reveals High Identification Success and Unusually Deep Interspecific Divergences
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With 400 K described species, beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera) represent the most diverse order in the animal kingdom. Although the study of their diversity currently represents a major challenge, DNA barcodes may provide a functional, standardized tool for their identification. To evaluate this possibility, we performed the first comprehensive test of the effectiveness of DNA barcodes as a tool for beetle identification by sequencing the COI barcode region from 1872 North European species. We examined intraspecific divergences, identification success and the effects of sample size on variation observed within and between species. A high proportion (98.3%) of these species possessed distinctive barcode sequence arrays. Moreover, the sequence divergences between nearest neighbor species were considerably higher than those reported for the only other insect order, Lepidoptera, which has seen intensive analysis (11.99% vs up to 5.80% mean NN divergence). Although maximum intraspecific divergence increased and average divergence between nearest neighbors decreased with increasing sampling effort, these trends rarely hampered identification by DNA barcodes due to deep sequence divergences between most species. The Barcode Index Number system in BOLD coincided strongly with known species boundaries with perfect matches between species and BINs in 92.1% of all cases. In addition, DNA barcode analysis revealed the likely occurrence of about 20 overlooked species. The current results indicate that DNA barcodes distinguish species of beetles remarkably well, establishing their potential to provide an effective identification tool for this order and to accelerate the discovery of new beetle species.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it