Phylogeny and classification of Odonata using targeted genomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dragonflies and damselflies are a charismatic, medium-sized insect order (~6300 species) with a unique potential to approach comparative research questions. Their taxonomy and many ecological traits for a large fraction of extant species are relatively well understood. However, until now, the lack of a large-scale phylogeny based on high throughput data with the potential to connect both perspectives has precluded comparative evolutionary questions for these insects. Here, we provide an ordinal hypothesis of classification based on anchored hybrid enrichment using a total of 136 species representing 46 of the 48 families or incertae sedis, and a total of 478 target loci. Our analyses recovered the monophyly for all three suborders: Anisoptera, Anisozygoptera and Zygoptera. Although the backbone of the topology was reinforced and showed the highest support values to date, our genomic data was unable to stronglyresolve portions of the topology. In addition, a quartet sampling approach highlights the potential evolutionary scenarios that may have shaped evolutionary phylogeny (e.g., incomplete lineage sorting and introgression) of this taxon. Finally, in light of our phylogenomic reconstruction and previous morphological and molecular information we proposed an updated odonate classification and define five new families (Amanipodagrionidae fam. nov., Mesagrionidae fam. nov., Mesopodagrionidae fam. nov., Priscagrionidae fam. nov., Protolestidae fam. nov.) and reinstate another two (Rhipidolestidae stat. res., Tatocnemididae stat. res.). Additionally, we feature the problematic taxonomic groupings for examination in future studies to improve our current phylogenetic hypothesis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".