<p><strong>Evolutionary riddles and phylogenetic twiddles: the ground plan and early diversification of the sternum V gland in Amphiesmenoptera (Trichoptera + Lepidoptera)</strong></p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the sternum V gland being a well known synapomorphy for Trichoptera and Lepidoptera, its ancestral configuration is uncertain. We investigated the sternum V gland in a wide variety of Trichoptera and Lepidoptera to resolve this question. We propose the ground plan to be constituted as follows: The gland is invaginated from sternum V with a slit-like opening and a U-shaped (in cross section) gland duct just inside the opening. Opening muscles originate anteromedially on sternum VI and insert on the walls of the gland duct just inside the opening. The gland reservoir is pressed against the cuticle of sternum IV and in females this area of cuticle is hyaline and perforated. A distinctive arrangement of muscle fibres originates around the perforated cuticle; they insert on the walls of the gland reservoir and facilitate secretion of gland products through the perforated cuticle. Other significant findings were the presence of 2 nonhomologous types of opening muscles in Trichoptera and the scattered distribution of retained ancestral gland features; the latter might imply that these features have been retained as genetic pathways without being physically present in all ancestors of the extant species exhibiting the features.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".