Molecular Phylogeny, Historical Biogeography, and Divergence Time Estimates for Swallowtail Butterflies of the Genus Papilio (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Swallowtail butterflies are recognized as model organisms in ecology, evolutionary biology, genetics, and conservation biology but present numerous unresolved phylogenetic problems. We inferred phylogenetic relationships for 51 of about 205 species of the genus Papilio (sensu lato) from 3.3-Kilobase (kb) sequences of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA (2.3 kb of cytochrome oxidases I and II and 1.0 kb of elongation factor 1 alpha). Congruent phylogenetic trees were recovered within Papilio from analyses of combined data using maximum likelihood, Bayesian analysis, and maximum parsimony bootstrap consensus. Several disagreements with the traditional classification of Papilio were found. Five major previously hypothesized subdivisions within Papilio were well supported: Heraclides, Pterourus, Chilasa, Papilio (sensu stricto), and Eleppone. Further studies are required to clarify relationships within traditional "Princeps," which was paraphyletic. Several biologically interesting characteristics of Papilio appear to have polyphyletic origins, including mimetic adults, larval host associations, and larval morphology. Early diversification within Papilio is estimated at 55-65 million years ago based on a combination of biogeographic time constraints rather than fossils. This divergence time suggests that Papilio has slower apparent substitution rates than do Drosophila and fig-pollinating wasps and/or divergences corrected using best-fit substitution models are still being consistently underestimated. The amount of sequence divergence between Papilio subdivisions is equivalent to divergences between genera in other tribes of the Papilionidae, and between genera of moths of the noctuid subfamily Heliothinae.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".