Comparison between shell morphology and genetic diversity in two sympatric lymnaeid snails, vectors of fasciolosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species determination of freshwater snails is particularly important in the case of disease vectors. In central France, for example, it has been shown that Galba truncatula (Müller, 1774) and Omphiscola glabra (Müller, 1774), which can be found in sympatry, are intermediate hosts for fasciolosis. Although these two species are distinguishable based on their shell morphology, some snails present in sympatric zones possess shell characteristics that are common to both species, suggesting possible gene flow. To test this hypothesis, we carried out multilocus enzyme electrophoreses on individuals sampled in one zone of sympatry. Our results clearly show that all snails with shell characteristics common to both species are O. glabra. We also note an absence of hybridization between G. truncatula and O. glabra in the study area. Remarkably, we observe a total monomorphism at the six studied loci among individuals of G. truncatula. Similarly, we find a total lack of heterozygotes in the O. glabra sample (with classic or intermediate shell characteristics). These results suggest a predominance of selfing in the reproductive mode of both species. Our results suggest that conchological characteristics can provide information about the taxonomic position of lymnaeids. However, they are insufficient to confidently differentiate 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.
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 | 0.002 | 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".