Hybridization between mtDNA‐defined phylogeographic lineages of black ratsnakes (<i>Pantherophis</i>sp.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phylogeographic analyses using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) have revealed many examples of apparently deep historical subdivisions ('phylogroups') within many vertebrates. It remains unclear whether these phylogroups represent independently evolving, adaptively differentiated lineages or groups that show little functional differentiation and, hence, will merge on contact. Here, we use mtDNA sequence data to evaluate the phylogeographic relationships between two of the northernmost populations of black ratsnakes (Pantherophis obsoletus complex) in Ontario, Canada and previously analysed populations in the United States. We then use population-level analyses to evaluate the level of adaptive divergence between previously established mtDNA phylogroups. Phylogenetic analyses show that southern Ontario snakes have mtDNA haplotypes that fall within the Central mtDNA phylogroup, as designated by Burbrink et al. (2000). In contrast, snakes in eastern Ontario carry either Central or Eastern-specific haplotypes. Within the hybrid region, we found highly variable frequencies of mtDNA haplotypes among isolated sub-populations, no association between variation in cytonuclear (mtDNA) and nuclear (microsatellite DNA) markers, no difference in survival or reproductive success among snakes with different mtDNA haplotypes, and no effect of mate similarity in mtDNA on female clutch size. These results argue that the Eastern and Central phylogroups have merged in this region, likely due to a lack of adaptive differentiation between individuals in each lineage. Hence, in these snakes, phylogeographic structure in mtDNA is more a reflection of historical isolation rather than adaptive divergence. The observed reticulation between lineages and lack of evidence for hybrid disgenesis also bears on the classification of these lineages as distinct 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".