Testing the role of the Red Queen and Court Jester as drivers of the macroevolution of Apollo butterflies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In macroevolution, the Red Queen (RQ) model posits that biodiversity dynamics depend mainly on species-intrinsic biotic factors such as interactions among species or life-history traits, while the Court Jester (CJ) model states that extrinsic environmental abiotic factors have a stronger role. Until recently, a lack of relevant methodological approaches has prevented the unraveling of contributions from these two types of factors to the evolutionary history of a lineage. Here we take advantage of the rapid development of new macroevolution models that tie diversification rates to changes in paleoenvironmental (extrinsic) and/or biotic (intrinsic) factors. We inferred a robust and fully-sampled species-level phylogeny, as well as divergence times and ancestral geographic ranges, and related these to the radiation of Apollo butterflies (Parnassiinae) using both extant (molecular) and extinct (fossil/morphological) evidence. We tested whether their diversification dynamics are better explained by a RQ or CJ hypothesis, by assessing whether speciation and extinction were mediated by diversity-dependence (niche filling) and clade-dependent host-plant association (RQ) or by large-scale continuous changes in extrinsic factors such as climate or geology (CJ). For the RQ hypothesis, we found significant differences in speciation rates associated with different host-plants but detected no sign of diversity-dependence. For CJ, the role of Himalayan-Tibetan building was substantial for biogeography but not a driver of high speciation, while positive dependence between warm climate and speciation/extinction was supported by continuously varying maximum-likelihood models. We find that rather than a single factor, the joint effect of multiple factors (biogeography, species traits, environmental drivers, and mass extinction) is responsible for current diversity patterns, and that the same factor might act differently across clades, emphasizing the notion of opportunity. This study confirms the importance of the confluence of several factors rather than single explanations in modeling diversification within lineages.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".