Comment on “Population genetics reveal <i>Myotis keenii</i> (Keen’s myotis) and <i>Myotis evotis</i> (long-eared myotis) to be a single species”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic exchange and hybridization appear common among the western long-eared bats from North America. Multiple sources of evidence indicate that lineages within this group are evolving independently, despite genetic exchange. However, evidence of gene flow raises questions about the species-level status of some lineages. C.L. Lausen et al. (2019. Can. J. Zool. 97(3): 267–279) proposed that Myotis evotis (H. Allen, 1864) (long-eared myotis) and Myotis keenii (Merriam, 1895) (Keen’s myotis) are one species, not two. This conclusion is based on analyses of cytochrome b and microsatellite data suggesting gene flow between these taxa. Microsatellites are not reliable markers for identifying species because homoplasy can be a major confounding factor, which appears to be true in this case. We reanalyzed the dataset of C.L. Lausen et al. (2019) and show that it is not reliable to distinguish between gene flow or homoplasy, and that these data do not support the conclusion that M. evotis and M. keenii represent a single species. Previous morphological and genomic studies indicate that these are separate species despite previous genetic exchange between them. Failing to recognize that gene flow can occur between independently evolving lineages is counterproductive for conservation because it can lead to neglect of important independent lineages, and likewise failing to use proper tools to delimit species is counterproductive to efforts to quantify biodiversity and design conservation strategies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.014 |
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".