Chromosomal Evolution in Psittaciformes. Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="1Body">With colourful plumage, charismatic character and vocal learning abilities, parrots are one of the most striking and recognizable bird groups. Their attractiveness has drawn human attention for centuries, and members of the Psittaciformes order were, also, among the first avian species to be subject to cytogenetic studies which have contributed to understand their taxonomic and evolutionary relationships.</p><p class="1Body">We present here the karyological results collected by the study of thirteen parrot species new to karyology. These results are additionally supported by G banded preparations obtained in five species.</p><p class="1Body">The order Psittaciformes is an interesting example of a, typically, non migratory avian lineage with Gondwanaland origin, whose evolutionary radiation has been shaped by the Cenozoic geographic and climatic events that affected the land masses derived from the Gondwanaland continental split.</p><p class="1Body">We discuss the results of our studies, in conjunction with the previously compiled Psittaciformes cytogenetic data to delineate a picture of the chromosomal evolution of the order, concurrently with the biogeographic history of the lands in the southern Hemisphere.</p><p class="1Body">Considering the available data on parrot cytogenetics, a "standard parrot karyotype pattern" is proposed for evolutionary comparisons.</p><p class="1Body">Several biogeographic, and phylogenetically related "karyogram patterns" are also identified, and mechanisms of chromosome rearrangement that associate this patterns among them, and with the standard parrot karyotype pattern are proposed. These schemes on parrot chromosomal variation are discussed in relation to the general avian chromosome evolutionary theses proposed by cytogenetic and molecular genomic researchers.</p>
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".