Molecular and classical chromosomal techniques reveal diversity in bushcricket genera of Barbitistini (Orthoptera)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cytogenetic characteristics of 17 species of bushcricket belonging to eight genera of the tribe Barbitistini were examined by fluorescence in situ hybridization with 18S rDNA and (TTAGGn) telomeric as probes and by C-banding, silver, and fluorochrome staining. These markers were used to understand chromosomal organization and evolutionary relationships between genera or species within the same genus. The number of 18S rDNA clusters per haploid genome that co-localized with active nucleolus organizer regions (NORs) ranged from one to five, with the most common pattern being the presence of one NOR-bearing chromosome. This ribosomal cistron was preferentially located in the paracentromeric region of autosomes and very rarely in the sex chromosome. The results demonstrated coincidence between the localization of major ribosomal genes and active NORs and the position of C-band and GC-rich regions. The rDNA/NOR distribution and the composition of chromosome heterochromatin proved to be good cytogenetic markers for distinguishing species and phylogenetic lines and for understanding the genomic differentiation and evolution of Barbitistini. A comparison of cytogenetic and morphological or behavioral traits suggests that morphological and behavioral specialization in this group was not followed by major karyotype modification (except for Leptophyes). However, the occurrence and distribution of different repetitive DNA sites tends to vary among the taxa.
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 | 0.002 | 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".