Phylogenetics and divergence times of Papilioninae (Lepidoptera) with special reference to the enigmatic genera Teinopalpus and Meandrusa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
© The Willi Hennig Society 2010. ABSTRACT: Phylogenetic relationships of 18 genera of the swallowtail subfamily Papilioninae, four genera of Parnassiinae, and the monobasic Baroniinae are inferred based on 94 morphological characters and 5616 bp DNA from seven genes (16S, COI, COII, ND1, ND5, EF-1 alpha and wingless). Bayesian likelihood analyses show that Baroniinae are the sister of a clade comprising Parnassiinae and Papilioninae. Four Papilioninae tribes are recognized, Leptocircini, Teinopalpini, Papilionini and Troidini, with Leptocircini being the sister of the remaining tribes. Meandrusa and Teinopalpus are sister taxa and comprise the tribe Teinopalpini, which is the sister of a clade comprising Papilionini and Troidini. The tribe Troidini (pipevine swallowtails) comprises two subtribes: Battina (including only Battus) and Troidina. The endemic Madagascan genus Pharmacophagus is consistently placed as the sister to the remaining Troidina. The non-Pharmacophagus Troidina are tentatively divided into a Neotropical lineage and an Australasian lineage. Dispersal-vicariance analyses indicate that past dispersal events are most important for explaining current distribution patterns of Papilionidae. However, the division of the non-Pharmacophagus Troidina into a Neotropical lineage and an Australasian lineage is possibly due to the final break-up of southern Gondwana. A fossil-calibrated relaxed Bayesian molecular clock analysis confirms that the ages of the lineages fit this scenario. The basal lineages leading to the current subfamily-level diversity of Papilionidae probably arose around the K/T boundary. Analyses of larval host-plant relationships within Papilionidae show very little phylogenetic pattern. However, Aristolochiaceae-feeding apparently evolved independently in non-Parnassiini parnassiines and Troidini.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".