Molecular phylogeny of the <scp>N</scp>ew <scp>W</scp>orld gecko genus <i><scp>H</scp>omonota</i> (<scp>S</scp>quamata: <scp>P</scp>hyllodactylidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genus Homonota was described by Gray (1845) and currently includes 10 species: Homonota andicola , H. borellii , H. darwinii , H. fasciata , H. rupicola , H. taragui , H. underwoodi , H. uruguayensis , H. williamsii & H. whitii and one subspecies of H. darwinii ( H. darwinii macrocephala ). It is distributed from 15° latitude south in southern Brazil, through much of Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina to 54° south in Patagonia and across multiple different habitats. Several morphological taxonomic studies on a subset of these species have been published, but no molecular phylogenetic hypotheses are available for the genus. The objective of this study is to present a molecular phylogenetic hypothesis for all the described species in the genus. We sequenced two mitochondrial genes (cyt‐ b & 12S: 1745 bp), seven nuclear protein coding ( RBMX , DMLX , NKTR , PLRL , SINCAIP , MXRA 5, ACA 4: 5804 bp) and two anonymous nuclear loci (30Hb, 19Hb: 1306 bp) and implemented traditional concatenated analyses ( MP , ML , BI ) as well as species‐tree (* beast ) approaches. All methods recovered almost the same topology. We recovered the genus Homonota as monophyletic with strong statistical support. Within Homonota, there are three strongly supported clades ( whitii , borellii and fasciata ), which differ from those previously proposed based on scale shape, osteology, myology and quantitative characters. Detailed morphological analyses based on this highly resolved and well‐supported phylogeny will provide a framework for understanding morphological evolution and historical biogeography of this phenotypically conservative genus. We hypothesize that extensive marine transgressions during Middle and Late Miocene most probably isolated the ancestors of the three main clades in eastern Uruguay ( borellii group), north‐western Argentina‐southern Bolivia ( fasciata group), and central‐western Argentina ( whitii group). Phylogeographic and morphological/morphometric analyses coupled with paleo‐niche modelling are needed to better understand its biogeographical history.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".