Molecular cytogenetics and phylogenetic analysis of Brazilian leaf frog species of the genera <i>Phyllomedusa</i> and <i>Phasmahyla</i> (Hylidae: Phyllomedusinae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study we describe the karyotypes and molecular phylogenetic relationships of the leaf frogs Phyllomedusa bahiana Lutz, 1925, Phyllomedusa burmeisteri Boulenger, 1882, Phyllomedusa nordestina Caramaschi, 2006, Phyllomedusa rohdei Mertens, 1926, Phyllomedusa hypochondrialis (Daudin, 1800), and Phasmahyla spectabilis Cruz, Feio and Nascimento, 2008. We analyzed the karyotypes using C-banding, fluorochrome staining, and fluorescence in situ hybridization of telomeric probe, and inferred phylogeny using nuclear tyrosinase and mitochondrial 16S rDNA sequences. Heterochromatin distribution in P. nordestina diverged from the other species, and P. bahiana and P. rohdei showed evident interstitial telomere sequences. Molecular analyzes confirmed the current taxonomic classification, grouping mitochondrial DNA sequences of each species, and usually without haplotype sharing in the nuclear gene. We also extended the distribution of P. burmeisteri to northern Bahia state and restricted P. bahiana to southern Bahia state, with a discrete extension of the range of P. bahiana to the north and northeast of Minas Gerais state. The tyrosinase haplotype network showed a haplotype shared between P. bahiana and P. burmeisteri from Porto Seguro, Bahia. Based on this, we suggest a new distribution in the overlapping area between these two species, which according to our data ranges between Porto Seguro and Camacan, in Bahia state.
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 | 0.000 | 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".