Relationships among the basal lineages of Noctuidae (Lepidoptera, Noctuoidea) based on eight gene regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we clarify the relationships between the basal lineages in the moth family Noctuidae using DNA sequence data from eight independent gene regions. Data matrices (6.4 kbp) are analysed using parsimony and model‐based methods (maximum likelihood and Bayesian inference). Our results support the family Noctuidae as a monophyletic group in which most subfamilies have hindwing vein M2 reduced or absent. Our phylogenetic hypothesis suggests that in the Noctuidae, the plesiomorphic condition is that in which vein M2 arises about one‐third of the way up the discocellular vein between the origins of M1 and M3, mainly parallel to M3, and is of thickness similar to vein M3. Most Noctuidae lineages possess an apomorphic (derived) condition in which hindwing vein M2 is markedly reduced or totally absent, so that the cubital vein appears to be three‐branched and these lineages are hence referred to as ‘trifine’. However, Noctuidae also include a number of lineages in which vein M2 is unreduced, or only slightly reduced, and these are more problematic for morphological association with the family Noctuidae. Our results also show that the subfamily Acronictinae is not closely related to Pantheinae, but instead shows a closer association with Amphipyrinae. Among the major lineages of Noctuidae, we postulate a general trend, with numerous exceptions, in larval host plants from woody plants in the basal groups towards herb feeding in derived groups. Similarly, the major radiations of monocot‐feeding groups within the family Noctuidae are in the higher trifines. The following taxonomic changes are proposed: Thiacidinae, syn. nov., a junior synonym of Pantheinae, and Dyopsinae, stat. nov., are reinstated as a subfamily.
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".