Resolving the Phylogenetic Position of Coelacanth: The Closest Relative Is Not Always the Most Appropriate Outgroup
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determining the phylogenetic relationship of two extant lineages of lobe-finned fish, coelacanths and lungfishes, and tetrapods is important for understanding the origin of tetrapods. We analyzed data sets from two previous studies along with a newly collected data set, each of which had varying numbers of species and genes and varying extent of missing sites. We found that in all the data sets the sister relationship of lungfish and tetrapods was constructed with the use of cartilaginous fish as the outgroup with a high degree of statistical support. In contrast, when ray-finned fish were used as the outgroup, which is taxonomically an immediate outgroup of lobe-finned fish and tetrapods, the sister relationship of coelacanth and tetrapods was supported most strongly, although the statistical support was weaker. Even though it is generally accepted that the closest relative is an appropriate outgroup, our analysis suggested that the large divergence of the ray-finned fish as indicated by their long branch lengths and different amino acid frequencies made them less suitable as an outgroup than cartilaginous fish.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".