Does <i>Eulemur cinereiceps</i> exist? Preliminary evidence from genetics and ground surveys in southeastern Madagascar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although appearing in the literature as early as 1890, the brown lemur form Eulemur cinereiceps has recently resurfaced as a potentially valid taxon, distinct from neighboring, presumably closely related species such as white-collared lemurs (Eulemur albocollaris). We propose two scenarios for the potential separation of E. cinereiceps and E. albocollaris: (1) coastal and interior populations represent two distinct taxa and (2) the coastal population north of the Manampatrana River (the locality for purported museum specimens of E. cinereiceps) represents a distinct species from E. albocollaris found south of the river and in the interior escarpment forests. We tested these hypotheses using data from ground surveys and genetic sampling. Surveys were conducted in coastal forest fragments both north and south of the Manampatrana River in July-August 2006. Genetic samples were collected at two coastal sites and one interior forest. We used maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood, and neighbor-joining analyses on mitochondrial DNA regions to determine if populations from different sites clustered into diagnosable clades. Results from field surveys confirmed the presence of forms commonly referred to as E. albocollaris at the two southern coastal forests; no consistent phenotypic differences across sites were observed. All genetic analyses yielded identical results: coastal and interior populations do not cluster into separate groups, thus rejecting the first hypothesis. Eulemur species and all other day-active lemurs have apparently been extirpated from coastal forests north of the Manampatrana. Owing to the absence of lemurs from the northern coastal localities, we could not conclusively support or reject the second scenario. However, based on examination of the original plates and museum specimens, as well as the biogeographic patterns typical of this region, we strongly suspect that all populations from this area belong to a single species. We conclude with remarks regarding the apparent priority of E. cinereiceps for this taxon.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".