Phylogenetics and biogeography of the two‐wing flyingfish (Exocoetidae: <i>Exocoetus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two‐wing flyingfish (Exocoetus spp.) are widely distributed, epipelagic, mid‐trophic organisms that feed on zooplankton and are preyed upon by numerous predators (e.g., tunas, dolphinfish, tropical seabirds), yet an understanding of their speciation and systematics is lacking. As a model of epipelagic fish speciation and to investigate mechanisms that increase biodiversity, we studied the phylogeny and biogeography of Exocoetus, a highly abundant holoepipelagic fish taxon of the tropical open ocean. Morphological and molecular data were used to evaluate the phylogenetic relationships, species boundaries, and biogeographic patterns of the five putative Exocoetus species. We show that the most widespread species (E. volitans) is sister to all other species, and we find no evidence for cryptic species in this taxon. Sister relationship between E. monocirrhus (Indo‐Pacific) and E. obtusirostris (Atlantic) indicates the Isthmus of Panama and/or Benguela Barrier may have played a role in their divergence via allopatric speciation. The sister species E. peruvianus and E. gibbosus are found in different regions of the Pacific Ocean; however, our molecular results do not show a clear distinction between these species, indicating recent divergence or ongoing gene flow. Overall, our phylogeny reveals that the most spatially restricted species are more recently derived, suggesting that allopatric barriers may drive speciation, but subsequent dispersal and range expansion may affect the distributions of species.
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 | 0.000 | 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".