Population genetics reveal <i>Myotis keenii</i> (Keen’s myotis) and <i>Myotis evotis</i> (long-eared myotis) to be a single species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognizing delineations of gene flow among groups of animals can be challenging but is necessary for conservation and management. Of particular importance is the identification of species boundaries. Several physical and genetic traits have been used with mixed success to distinguish Myotis keenii (Merriam, 1895) (Keen’s myotis) and Myotis evotis (H. Allen, 1864) (long-eared myotis), but it is unclear whether species distinction is biologically warranted. We generated 12–14 microsatellite locus genotypes for 275 long-eared Myotis representing four species — M. keenii, M. evotis, Myotis septentrionalis (Trouessart, 1897) (northern myotis), and Myotis thysanodes Miller, 1897 (fringed myotis) — from across northwestern North America and 23 Myotis lucifugus (Le Conte, 1831) (little brown myotis) as the outgroup. Population genetic analyses revealed four well-defined groups (species): M. septentrionalis, M. thysanodes, M. lucifugus, and a single group comprising M. keenii and M. evotis. We document high rates of gene flow within M. evotis/M. keenii. Cytochrome b gene (mtDNA) sequencing failed to resolve morphologically identifiable species. We highlight the importance of geographically thorough investigation of genetic connectivity (nuclear markers) when assessing taxonomic status of closely related groups. We document a morphometric cline within M. evotis/M. keenii that may in part explain earlier analyses that led to the description of the smaller bodied M. keenii (type locality: Haida Gwaii). We conclude that M. keenii does not qualify as a genetic or biological 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".