Phylogenetic relationships of the New World titi monkeys (Callicebus): first appraisal of taxonomy based on molecular evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Titi monkeys, Callicebus, comprise the most species-rich primate genus-34 species are currently recognised, five of them described since 2005. The lack of molecular data for titi monkeys has meant that little is known of their phylogenetic relationships and divergence times. To clarify their evolutionary history, we assembled a large molecular dataset by sequencing 20 nuclear and two mitochondrial loci for 15 species, including representatives from all recognised species groups. Phylogenetic relationships were inferred using concatenated maximum likelihood and Bayesian analyses, allowing us to evaluate the current taxonomic hypothesis for the genus. RESULTS: Our results show four distinct Callicebus clades, for the most part concordant with the currently recognised morphological species-groups-the torquatus group, the personatus group, the donacophilus group, and the moloch group. The cupreus and moloch groups are not monophyletic, and all species of the formerly recognized cupreus group are reassigned to the moloch group. Two of the major divergence events are dated to the Miocene. The torquatus group, the oldest radiation, diverged c. 11 Ma; and the Atlantic forest personatus group split from the ancestor of all donacophilus and moloch species at 9-8 Ma. There is little molecular evidence for the separation of Callicebus caligatus and C. dubius, and we suggest that C. dubius should be considered a junior synonym of a polymorphic C. caligatus. CONCLUSIONS: Considering molecular, morphological and biogeographic evidence, we propose a new genus level taxonomy for titi monkeys: Cheracebus n. gen. in the Orinoco, Negro and upper Amazon basins (torquatus group), Callicebus Thomas, 1903, in the Atlantic Forest (personatus group), and Plecturocebus n. gen. in the Amazon basin and Chaco region (donacophilus and moloch groups).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".