MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SYSTEMATICS OF DOG-FACED BATS (CYNOMOPS) BASED ON MOLECULAR AND MORPHOMETRIC DATA

2002· article· en· W2181078679 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra L. Peters, Burton K. Lim, Mark D. Engstrom

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario MuseumUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonophylyAutapomorphyBiologySubgenusCladeSubspeciesZoologyGenusSister groupPhylogenetic treeTaxonSystematicsEvolutionary biologyLineage (genetic)Molecular phylogeneticsTaxonomy (biology)Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cynomops (dog-faced bat) generally is regarded as either a monophyletic genus or, in some cases, a subgenus of Molossops. Species limits and phylogenetic relationships within Cynomops, however, remain unresolved due primarily to subtle morphological differences and similarity in size of the small taxa. We used a combination of morphometric analyses for quantifying size variation and molecular data for reconstructing the evolutionary history within Cynomops. Rooting the tree with Eumops hansae produced a clade of Molossops neglectus and M. temminckii that was sister to a monophyletic Cynomops clade. The most parsimonious topology (in parenthetical notation) for Cynomops was (((paranus + planirostris) + (greenhalli + abrasus)) + mexicanus). Molecular analysis supports the autapomorphy of white venter as diagnostic for C. planirostris, although there was some overlap in size with the slightly larger, dark-venter C. paranus. Cynomops greenhalli was intermediate in size between C. paranus and C. mexicanus, but molecular analyses placed it as sister to the large-sized C. abrasus. The western Mexico endemic C. mexicanus, traditionally considered a subspecies of C. greenhalli, averaged larger in size than the other small Cynomops taxa and was the most basal lineage, requiring its designation as a 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MammalogySame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207