DNA barcoding as an aid for species identification in austral black flies (Insecta: Diptera: Simuliidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the utility of a partial sequence of the COI gene, the DNA barcoding region, for the identification of species of black flies in the austral region was assessed. Twenty-eight morphospecies were analyzed: eight of the genus Austrosimulium (four species in the subgenus Austrosimulium s. str., three species in the subgenus Novaustrosimulium, and one species unassigned to subgenus), two of the genus Cnesia, eight of Gigantodax, three of Paracnephia, one of Paraustrosimulium, and six of Simulium (subgenera Morops, Nevermannia, and Pternaspatha). The neighbour-joining tree derived from the DNA barcode sequences grouped most specimens according to species or species groups recognized by morphotaxonomic studies. Intraspecific sequence divergences within morphologically distinct species ranged from 0% to 1.8%, while higher divergences (2%-4.2%) in certain species suggested the presence of cryptic diversity. The existence of well-defined groups within S. simile revealed the likely inclusion of cryptic diversity. DNA barcodes also showed that specimens identified as C. dissimilis, C. nr. pussilla, and C. ornata might be conspecific, suggesting possible synonymy. DNA barcoding combined with a sound morphotaxonomic framework would provide an effective approach for the identification of black flies in the region.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".