Structure, variation, and systematic implications of the hemipenes of liolaemid lizards (Reptilia: Liolaemidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structure of copulatory organs is widely used in systematics for both differentiating species and for studying phylogenetic relationships. We describe the hemipenes of 42 species belonging to the genus Liolaemus, representing most of their internal groups. We reported 42 characters, the majority not published previously. We constructed a metatree based on previously proposed phylogenetic studies and optimized the hemipenial characters in this topology. Among the most informative characters are presence or absence of flounces or calyces on the sulcate face, ornamentation of the apex, presence or absence of an asulcate face prominence, and presence of a thickening on the proximal region of the asulcate face. Furthermore, we performed a phylogenetic analysis exclusively with the hemipenial characters, not with the intention of making a phylogeny based on this single set of characters, but rather to demonstrate their significance for the reconstruction of relationships in Liolaemus. The obtained results show that the main clades are recovered. We also compared the hemipenial morphology between closely related species to evaluate its taxonomic importance. We conclude that in Liolaemus, the hemipenes can be used both for the differentiation of species and to provide additional evidence for establishing their phylogenetic relationships.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".