Discrimination of the bumble bee species Bombus occidentalis Greene and B. terricola Kirby by morphometric, colour and RAPD variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The taxonomic status of B. terricola Kirby and B. occidentalis Greene has long been questioned. However recent COI gene sequence data suggests that B. occidentalis and B. terricola do represent good biological species. In this paper we test the hypothesis that B. terricola and B. occidentalis are conspecific by using independent morphometric and genetic (RAPD) data. For comparison we also analyzed one consubgeneric species, B. moderatus (now B. crytptarum), and one non-consubgeneric species B. (Pyrobombus) perplexus. Discriminant function analysis of wing morphometric data correctly classified over 85% of the specimens of B. occidentalis and B. terricola. Analysis of molecular variance of the RAPD data showed a significant difference (P < 0.0001) between B. occidentalis and B. terricola. Colour variation from laboratory reared colonies of B. occidentalis suggests that probably two gene locus inheritance is likely but that hybridization as the sole basis for the colour variation seen in the nominate taxon B. occidentalis can be excluded. We conclude that B. terricola and B. occidentalis should be regarded as distinct species which have recently diverged, and that they can be distinguished by wing morphometrics and RAPD genotypes. Where they are sympatric (e.g. in Alberta) colour pattern variation is confined to B. occidentalis.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".