Phylogenetic Relationships of Five Asian Schilbid Genera Including Clupisoma (Siluriformes: Schilbeidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phylogenetic relationships of Asian schilbid catfishes of the genera Clupisoma, Ailia, Horabagrus, Laides and Pseudeutropius are poorly understood, especially those of Clupisoma. Herein, we reconstruct the phylogeny of 38 species of catfishes belonging to 28 genera and 14 families using the concatenated mitochondrial genes COI, cytb, and 16S rRNA, as well as the nuclear genes RAG1 and RAG2. The resulting phylogenetic trees consistently place Clupisoma as the sister taxon of Laides, and the five representative Asian schilbid genera form two monophyletic groups with the relationships (Ailia (Laides, Clupisoma)) and (Horabagrus, Pseudeutropius). The so-called "Big Asia" lineage relates distantly to African schilbids. Independent analyses of the mitochondrial and nuclear DNA data yield differing trees for the two Asian schilbid groups. Analyses of the mitochondrial gene data support a sister-group relationship for (Ailia (Laides, Clupisoma)) and the Sisoroidea and a sister-taxon association of (Horabagrus, Pseudeutropius) and the Bagridae. In contrast, analyses of the combined nuclear data indicate (Ailia (Laides, Clupisoma)) to be the sister group to (Horabagrus, Pseudeutropius). Our results indicate that the Horabagridae, recognized by some authors as consisting of Horabagrus, Pseudeutropius and Clupisoma does not include the latter genus. We formally erect a new family, Ailiidae fam. nov. for a monophyletic Asian group comprised of the genera Ailia, Laides and Clupisoma.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".