Species boundaries of Pardosa concinna and P. lapponica (Araneae: Lycosidae) in the northern Nearctic: morphology and DNA barcodes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Holarctic Pardosa lapponica (Thorell, 1872) and the Nearctic P. concinna (Thorell, 1877) are the only North American members of the Pardosa lapponica species-group. The morphological similarity between the two species raises the question of whether or not they should be treated as separate species. To examine the boundary between P. lapponica and P. concinna, morphological and genetic variation within and between the species was analysed. Copulatory organ characters of Nearctic specimens were analysed to determine if additional diagnostic characters exist, and the mtDNA COI region was sequenced to look for species-specific variation. Morphometric analysis of copulatory characters in females (e.g. length of median septum) and males (e.g. embolus length) of both species did not reveal diagnostic characters other than the terminal apophysis. No species-specific genetic patterns were found between the two species. The interspecific similarities in morphology and low genetic divergence between Nearctic specimens of P. lapponica and P. concinna contrasts with high genetic divergence between Palearctic and Nearctic specimens of P. lapponica. The results suggest a comprehensive taxonomic revision is necessary for the P. lapponica species-group.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it