The first molecular phylogeny of the weevil subfamily Lixinae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) casts doubts on the monophyly of its tribes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper targets the nearly cosmopolitan weevil subfamily Lixinae. A phylogenetic analysis of one mitochondrial and two nuclear DNA fragments obtained from 87 Lixinae and 49 outgroup terminals strongly supports the monophyly of the subfamily. The molytine tribe Mecysolobini is the likeliest sister group of Lixinae; adults of both taxa share the likely synapomorphic condition of the greatly shortened labial palpi. Phylogenetic relationships within the subfamily are poorly resolved. None of three Lixinae tribes is recovered as monophyletic. The subfamilys oldest dichotomy is formed by a clade of two genera Rhabdorrhynchus plus Pachycerus sister to the rest of the subfamily. The genera Chromonotus, Larinus, Lixus, and Stephanocleonus are recovered as non-monophyletic. The genera Asproparthenis, Chromonotus, and Maximus form a strongly supported clade. The genus Eumecops is the likeliest sister to the clade formed by the genera Stephanocleonus plus Coniocleonus. The cleonine genus Scaphomorphus is a sister to a subset of externally most similar species of the genus Lixus; the same clade likely includes the genus Lixoglyptus not represented in the analysis. As an aside we provide a short summary of active flight in adult Cleonini.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".