Hidden or unnoticed? <scp>Multiple</scp> lines of evidence support the recognition of a new species of <scp><i>Pseudocorynopoma</i> (Characidae: Corynopomini)</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species delimitation is a permanent issue in systematics. The increasing recognition of geographically isolated populations as independent lineages allowed by new methods of analysis has inflated the species-populations dilemma, which involves deciding whether to consider separate lineages as different species or structured genetic populations. This is commonly observed between fishes of adjacent river basins, with some lineages being considered allopatric sister species and others considered isolated populations or variants of the same species. Pseudocorynopoma doriae is a characid diagnosed from its single congener by the number of anal-fin rays and sexually dimorphic characters of males, including distinct fin colouration. The authors found variation in the colour pattern between isolated populations previously identified as P. doriae but no variation in scale or fin-ray counts. They analysed molecular evidence at the population level and morphological differences related to life history (e.g., colour dimorphism related to inseminating behaviour). The results provide compelling evidence for the recognition of a new species of Pseudocorynopoma despite the lack of discrete differences in meristic data. The recognition of the new species is consistent with biogeographical evidence for the long-term isolation of the respective river drainages and with differences between the ichthyofaunal communities of these rivers.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".