Taxonomy as a hypothesis: testing the status of the Bermuda buckeye butterfly <i>Junonia coenia bergi</i> (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Species determination and definition in eukaryotes have traditionally been based on morphology, with little focus on genetic differentiation. Molecular methods allow for the independent assessment of morphology‐based taxonomic hypotheses. Three criteria used to define a full species for taxonomic purposes are morphological distinction, formation of a monophyletic lineage, and reproductive isolation. Junonia butterflies (Nymphalidae) are becoming an important experimental model system, but the taxonomy of many New World Junonia species is unclear. One of these species is J. coenia , which contains the subspecies J. coenia coenia , J. coenia grisea and J. coenia bergi . Previous studies suggest that J. coenia grisea may meet the criteria for full species status. Therefore, we evaluated the geographically isolated and rarely studied Bermuda buckeye butterfly J. coenia bergi to determine if it was similarly distinct. Physical examination of specimens and phylogenetic and population genetic analyses of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I , nuclear wingless , and complete mitochondrial genome sequences suggest that while J. coenia bergi is smaller in body size than many Junonia and has distinctive ventral hindwing colouration, it does not form a monophyletic lineage and shows indications of continued gene flow with North American mainland J. coenia coenia populations. Thus, J. coenia bergi does not meet the criteria for full species designation, but geographic isolation, morphological distinctiveness, and cultural importance suggest that it remain recognized as a subspecies of J. coenia . Similar analyses will be useful for addressing further taxonomic questions in Junonia and other taxa, especially where morphology‐based taxonomic determinations are ambiguous.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".