Phylogenetic Relationships of the Enigmatic Harpy Fruit Bat, Harpyionycteris (Mammalia: Chiroptera: Pteropodidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harpy fruit bats, two closely related species in the genus Harpyionycteris (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae), exhibit a suite of unique craniodental traits. For this reason, the affinities of these bats have remained unclear, and most systematists have placed them in a group of their own (Harpyionycterinae Miller, 1907). The multicuspidate pattern of the cheek teeth in Harpyionycteris has generated speculation that it may represent an ancestral tribosphenic pattern lost in other pteropodids. In this contribution we propose a phylogenetic placement of Harpyionycteris based on parsimony analysis of complete sequences from two coding genes, the nuclear vWF (exon 28) and the mitochondrial cytochrome b (cyt-b). Both datasets, independently and in combination, strongly support a close relationship between Harpyionycteris and Dobsonia, as originally proposed by Andersen (1912, Catalogue of Chiroptera, British Museum Trustees). In turn, this group nests deeply inside Pteropodidae but it is not closely related to any particular suprageneric clade. Based on other data, we postulate that Aproteles also belongs in this group and therefore propose the expansion of Harpyionycterinae to include Harpyionycteris, Aproteles, and Dobsonia. Regarding the dentition, our results strongly reject the tribosphenic hypothesis advanced by some authors. The multicuspidate cheek tooth pattern seen in Harpyionycteris appears uniquely derived and related to specialized feeding habits and it thus has no direct bearing on the evolution of the typical pteropodid dentition from the tribosphenic pattern of microchiropterans and other mammals.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".