Mitochondrial evidence supports a Nearctic origin for the spreading limicolous earthworm Sparganophilus tamesis Benham, 1892 (Clitellata, Sparganophilidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analysed samples of Sparganophilus taken at the corners of its distribution area in Europe (UK, Germany and Italy). No mitochondrial genetic divergence within and amongst them was found, neither in COI nor in 16S. Further, the COI haplotype was also identical to two sequences from Ontario, Canada in the Barcoding of Life Data System (BOLD) database. Our European COI and 16S sequences showed only minimal differentiation (only 1 or 2 substitutions) from specimens newly collected in Illinois and Washington states (USA), as well as from a COI haplotype from Tennessee (USA) in BOLD. An additional COI haplotype from Illinois (found in BOLD) is 2.1% different from the other haplotypes but clearly belongs to the same lineage of Sparganophilus . This geographically broad but genetically compact group fits the morphological diagnosis of S. tamesis Benham, 1892 as revised by Jamieson (1971) and is seen as evidence that all European populations 1) belong to the same species, 2) derive from a recent introduction, 3) are conspecific with the most widespread species of Sparganophilus in North America, and that 4) S. tamesis is a senior synonym of S. eiseni Smith, 1895. The single European haplotype does not refute the possibility of its spread from a single introduced source population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".