Molecular Population Structure of<i>Junonia</i>Butterflies from French Guiana, Guadeloupe, and Martinique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Up to 9 described species ofJunoniabutterflies occur in the Americas, but authorities disagree due to species similarities, geographical and seasonal variability, and possible hybridization. In dispute is whether CaribbeanJunoniaare conspecific with South American species.Cytochrome oxidase I(COI) barcodes,wingless(wg) sequences, and Randomly Amplified Fingerprints (RAF) were studied to revealJunoniapopulation structure in French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Argentina. Phylogenetic analysis ofCOIrecovered 2 haplotype groups, but mostJunoniaspecies can have either haplotype, soCOIbarcodes are ambiguous. Analysis of nuclearwinglessalleles revealed geographic patterns but did not identifyJunoniaspecies. Nuclear RAF genotyping distinguished 11 populations ofJunoniaarranged into 3 clusters. Gene flow occurs within clusters but is limited between clusters. One cluster included all Argentinian samples. Two clusters included samples from French Guiana, Martinique, and Guadeloupe and appear to be divided by larval host plant use (Lamiales versus Scrophulariales). ManyJunoniataxa were distributed across populations, possibly reflecting patterns of genetic exchange. We had difficulty distinguishing between the Caribbean formsJ. zonalisandJ. neildi, but we demonstrate that CaribbeanJunoniaare genetically distinct from South AmericanJ. evareteandJ. genoveva, supporting the taxonomic hypothesis that they are heterospecific.
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 | 0.001 | 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".