MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2289298663 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.2211.1.1

A new frog family (Anura: Terrarana) from South America and an expanded direct-developing clade revealed by molecular phylogeny

2009· article· en· W2289298663 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew P. Heinicke, William E. Duellman, Linda Trueb, D. Bruce Means, Ross D. MacCulloch, S. Blair Hedges

Bibliographic record

VenueZootaxa · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCladeZoologyPhylogeneticsPhylogenetic treeGenusMarsupialMolecular phylogeneticsEvolutionary biologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three frogs of a new species found in cloud forests on two nearby mountains in Guyana were included in a molecular phylogeny of 17 nuclear and mitochondrial genes (10,739 aligned sites) that revealed that their closest relative is Terrarana (Brachycephalidae, Craugastoridae, Eleutherodactylidae, and Strabomantidae) and their next-closest relative is Hemiphractidae (marsupial frogs). We place these frogs in a new family, genus, and species which is strongly supported as the basal clade within Terrarana: Ceuthomantidae n. fam., Ceuthomantis smaragdinus n. gen, n. sp. Morphological evidence supports the placement of two other species from the Guiana Highlands, Pristimantis aracamuni (BarrioAmorós & Molina) and P. cavernibardus (Myers & Donnelly), in the new family and genus. This close phylogenetic relationship of terraranans and marsupial frogs, nearly all of which have direct development, supports an hypothesis that direct development evolved early in the evolution of this huge clade (~1000 species), for which we propose the unranked taxonomic epithet Orthobatrachia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations133
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZootaxaSame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207