Phylogenomic analyses of mud dragons (Kinorhyncha)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mud dragons (Kinorhyncha) are microscopic invertebrates, inhabiting marine sediments across the globe from intertidal to hadal depths. They are segmented, moulting animals like arthropods, but grouping with the unsegmented priapulans and loriciferans within Ecdysozoa. There are more than 300 species of kinorhynchs described within 31 genera and 11 families, however, their evolutionary relationships have so far only been investigated using morphology and a few molecular markers. Here we aim to resolve the relationships and classification of major clades within Kinorhyncha using transcriptomic data. In addition, we wish to revisit the position of three indistinctly segmented, aberrant genera in order to reconstruct the evolution of distinct segmentation within the group. We conducted a phylogenomic analysis of Kinorhyncha including 21 kinorhynch transcriptomes (of which 18 are new) representing 15 genera, and seven outgroups including priapulan, loriciferan, nematode and nematomorph transcriptomes. Results show a congruent and robust tree that supports the division of Kinorhyncha into two major clades: Cyclorhagida and Allomalorhagida. Cyclorhagida is composed of three subclades: Xenosomata, Kentrorhagata comb. nov. (including the aberrant Zelinkaderes) and Echinorhagata. Allomalorhagida is composed of two subclades: Pycnophyidae and Anomoirhaga nom. nov. Anomoirhaga nom. nov. accommodates the aberrant genera Cateria (previously nested within Cyclorhagida) and Franciscideres together with five additional genera. The distant and derived positions of the aberrant Zelinkaderes, Cateria and Franciscideres species suggest that their less distinct trunk segmentation evolved convergently, and that segmentation evolved among kinorhynch stem groups.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".