Subspecies description rates are higher in morphologically complex land snails
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Subspecies richness (average number of subspecies per species = SSP/SP) has traditionally been explained by niche breadth, characteristics of the preferred habitat (“habitat hypothesis”), dispersal ability, range size (“range size hypothesis”), etc. However, in several invertebrate groups, there are striking differences between SSP/SP across families, which cannot be explained using classic arguments, and we might assume some hidden factor in the background. For example, some families of terrestrial molluscs, that possess conspicuously more subspecies than others, have higher degree of morphological complexity (shell size, number of diagnosable shell characters), for which we propose the “artefact hypothesis.” According to this, morphological complexity plays an important role in taxonomists' subspecies recognition. We used shell size, number of characters mentioned in species descriptions and area extent in six European land snail families, and habitat characteristics (rock‐dwelling vs. non‐rock‐dwelling) in one largest European snail families (Clausiliidae) to test our hypothesis. We found that all three factors (range size, morphological complexity and habitat type) correlated positively with the SSP/SP ratio. Although the generality of our findings has to be tested in other invertebrate phyla, we provide examples of striking differences between SSP/SP ratios in butterflies (Lepidoptera) and beetles (Coleoptera) as well. Our findings imply that researchers (a) should use the number of SSP more carefully in comprehensive studies, and (b) should maintain and use the rank subspecies in order to provide a stronger status for the species rank, and avoid taxonomic inflation. Furthermore, the subspecies rank might be more useful for “cryptic species” (clades that are indistinguishable morphologically) than 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 it