Genetic variation within the genus <i>Macropostrongyloides</i> (Nematoda: Strongyloidea) from Australian macropodid and vombatid marsupials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genetic variation and taxonomic status of the four morphologically-defined species of Macropostrongyloides in Australian macropodid and vombatid marsupials were examined using sequence data of the ITS+ region (=first and second internal transcribed spacers, and the 5.8S rRNA gene) of the nuclear ribosomal DNA. The results of the phylogenetic analyses revealed that Ma. baylisi was a species complex consisting of four genetically distinct groups, some of which are host-specific. In addition, Ma. lasiorhini in the common wombat (Vombatus ursinus) did not form a monophyletic clade with Ma. lasiorhini from the southern hairy-nosed wombat (Lasiorhinus latifrons), suggesting the possibility of cryptic (genetically distinct but morphologically similar) species. There was also some genetic divergence between Ma. dissimilis in swamp wallabies (Wallabia bicolor) from different geographical regions. In contrast, there was no genetic divergence among specimens of Ma. yamagutii across its broad geographical range or between host species (i.e. Macropus fuliginosus and M. giganteus). Macropostrongyloides dissimilis represented the sister taxon to Ma. baylisi, Ma. yamagutii and Ma. lasiorhini. Further morphological and molecular studies are required to assess the species complex of Ma. baylisi.
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".