Hybridisation and lack of prezygotic barriers between <i>Phymata pennsylvanica</i> and <i>americana</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. The persistence of both geographical and reproductive boundaries between related species poses a fundamental puzzle in biology. Reproductive interactions between species can have a substantial impact on the maintenance of a boundary, potentially contributing to its collapse (e.g. via hybridisation) or facilitating reproductive isolation (e.g. via reinforcement). 2. The degree to which two parapatric insect species in the genus Phymata are reproductively isolated was evaluated and several mechanisms that could contribute to the maintenance of species boundaries were assessed. 3. Behavioural assays showed no indication of species‐assortative mating, nor any fecundity costs associated with heterospecific mating. Thus, there was no evidence of prezygotic mechanisms of reproductive isolation between the two species. 4.In laboratory crosses, it was found that the two species were indeed capable of producing viable F1 hybrids. Morphologically, these hybrids were phenotypically intermediate to the two parental species, and similar to the phenotypes seen in natural populations thought to occur in a hybrid zone. F1 hybrids did not show reduced viability, although there was some suggestion of ‘hybrid breakdown’, evident from the lower viability observed for progeny of ‘natural hybrids’. 5. Collectively, we show that despite genetically based morphological differences between species, P. americana and pennsylvanica can, and probably do hybridise. More studies are needed to understand the mechanisms that maintain the distinct phenotypes and geographical ranges of these species, despite the considerable potential for introgression.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".