The Caribbean enigma: the presence of unusual cryptic diversity in intertidal mites (Arachnida, Acari, Oribatida)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The definition, as well as the existence of cryptic species, is still a subject of controversial debates. Some scientists claim that cryptic diversity is a real phenomenon that should be extensively studied while others argue that cryptic species do not exist as they are nothing more than an incompatibility of species concepts. We investigated the enigmatic case of two widely distributed Caribbean intertidal oribatid mites, Carinozetes bermudensis and Carinozetes mangrovi , consisting of five distinct genetic lineages. Morphological features allowing to clearly distinguish between these lineages are absent, and despite certain congruence with genetic data, comprehensive morphometric analyses also do not show clear separation. Species delimitation analyses based on COI sequence data, on the other hand, suggest five distinct genetic species. Despite the lack of diagnostic characters for these suggested species, the lineages can be classified at least into two morphological groups, the bermudensis and the mangrovi group which can only be distinguished by the arrangement of cuticular ventral carinae. Specimens within a group show nearly identical phenotypes, impeding morphological identification and hence rendering the found diversity cryptic. Stabilizing selection caused by the extreme conditions of the intertidal environment is suggested to be responsible for the found morphological stasis. The genetic lineages show more or less clear geographic patterns; in C. mangrovi , there is a northern, an Antillean, and a Pacific lineage, whereas in C. bermudensis , there is a Bermudian and a Caribbean lineage. In a few places, e.g., the Bahamas and Panama, distributions may overlap. Neither the found biogeographic pattern nor the observed ecological needs could explain the reason for the genetic diversification of Caribbean Carinozetes .
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".