Revisiting the evolution of <i>Ostrinia</i> moths with phylogenomics (Pyraloidea: Crambidae: Pyraustinae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reconstructing a robust phylogenetic framework is key to understanding the ecology and evolution of many economically important taxa. The crambid moth genus Ostrinia contains multiple agricultural pests, and its classification and phylogeny has remained controversial because of the paucity of characters and the lack of clear morphological boundaries for its species. To address these issues, we inferred a molecular phylogeny of Ostrinia using a phylogenomic dataset containing 498 loci and 115 197 nucleotide sites and examined whether traditional morphological characters corroborate our molecular results. Our results strongly support the monophyly of one of the Ostrinia species groups but surprisingly do not support the monophyly of the other two. Based on the extensive morphological examination and broadly representative taxon sampling of the phylogenomic analyses, we propose a revised classification of the genus, defined by three species groups ( Ostrinia nubilalis species group, Ostrinia obumbratalis species group, and Ostrinia penitalis species group), which differs from the traditional classification of Mutuura & Munroe (1970). Morphological and molecular evidence reveal the presence of a new North American species, Ostrinia multispinosa Yang sp.n. , closely related to O . obumbratalis . Our analyses indicate that the Ostrinia ancestral larval host preference was for dicots, and that O . nubilalis (European corn borer) and Ostrinia furnacalis (Asian corn borer) independently evolved a preference for feeding on monocots (i.e., maize). Males of a few Ostrinia species have enlarged, grooved midtibiae with brush organs that are known to attract females to increase mating success during courtship, which may represent a derived condition. Our study provides a strong evolutionary framework for this agriculturally important insect lineage.
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 | 0.001 | 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".