Cryptic diversity in the long‐horn moth <i>Nemophora degeerella</i> (Lepidoptera: Adelidae) revealed by morphology, <scp>DNA</scp> barcodes and genome‐wide <scp>ddRAD</scp> ‐seq data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The growth of DNA barcode libraries has now revealed many cases of potentially cryptic diversity in various groups of generally well‐studied European Lepidoptera. In this paper, we revise a complex of cryptic species, which were formerly all classified as one species, Nemophora degeerella (Linnaeus, 1758). We found that this complex consists of three taxa: N. degeerella (Linnaeus, 1758), which is widely distributed across temperate Europe north of the Alps, from Portugal to Finland, Central Russia and Ukraine; N. scopolii sp.n. , which inhabits central and southern Europe (Slovakia, southern Germany, Austria, Slovenia and Italy); and N. deceptoriella sp.n. from the Caucasus (Russia and Georgia). These species are separated by subtle but stable external morphological characters (forewing size and pattern, relative size of the labial palpus, scapus and compound eyes) and divergent cytochrome c oxidase subunit I ( COI) lineages, with at least one geographical region (Austria to southern Germany and Slovakia) where two of these species ( N. degeerella and N. scopolii ) co‐occur. The characters of the male genitalia and four nuclear markers ( CAD , EF ‐1a, MDH and MDH ; available for two of the three taxa) did not support the separation of the taxa, but data derived from 1363 and 390 restriction‐site associated DNA sequencing ( RAD ) loci (altogether consisting of 259 311 and 71 778 bp) of four specimens of each N. degeerella and N. scopolii , which were collected mostly from the contact zone strongly supported their distinctiveness as independent lineages. Our study is one of the still quite few cases where morphological and COI analyses are supplemented with nuclear data, and one of the very first cases where next‐generation sequencing based on double‐digest RAD sequencing ( ddRAD ‐seq) methods have been applied to address taxonomic questions in insects. This published work has been registered in ZooBank : http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:FBA1953A‐412E‐4395‐BB36‐B650621DD0D0 .
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".