Systematics and evolution of predatory flower flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) based on exon‐capture sequencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Flower flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) are one of the most species‐rich dipteran families and provide important ecosystem services such as pollination, biological control of pests, recycling of organic matter and redistributions of essential nutrients. Flower fly adults generally feed on pollen and nectar, but their larval feeding habits are strikingly diverse. In the present study, high‐throughput sequencing was used to capture and enrich phylogenetically and evolutionary informative exonic regions. With the help of the baitfisher software, we developed a new bait kit (SYRPHIDAE1.0) to target 1945 CDS regions belonging to 1312 orthologous genes. This new bait kit was successfully used to exon capture the targeted loci in 121 flower fly species across the different subfamilies of Syrphidae. We analysed different amino acid and nucleotide data sets (1302 loci and 154 loci) with maximum likelihood and multispecies coalescent models. Our analyses yielded highly supported similar topologies, although the degree of the SRH (global stationarity, reversibility and homogeneity) conditions varied greatly between amino acid and nucleotide data sets. The sisterhood of subfamilies Pipizinae and Syrphinae is supported in all our analyses, confirming a common origin of taxa feeding on soft‐bodied arthropods. Based on our results, we define Syrphini stat.rev. to include the genera Toxomerus and Paragus . Our divergence estimate analyses with beast inferred the origin of the Syrphidae in the Lower Cretaceous (125.5–98.5 Ma) and the diversification of predatory flower flies around the K–Pg boundary (70.61–54.4 Ma), coinciding with the rise and diversification of their prey.
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 | 0.000 | 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".