Phylogenetic relationships and divergence dating of Mantodea using mitochondrial phylogenomics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mantodea is a predatory insect group, its members occupying a diverse array of widely distributed habitats. Praying mantis species utilize hunting strategies including remarkable mimicry and unique camouflage for hiding from natural enemies while catching their prey. The emergence of a “cyclopean ear” in mantises is thought to be a morphological innovation of the group, and an “arms race” with echolocating bats is one of the hypotheses put forward to account for the emergence of the mantis ear from a coevolutionary perspective. However, this hypothesis has not been rigorously tested because of a lack of robust higher‐level phylogeny and a detailed chronogram of Mantodea. Previous phylogenetic studies found an incongruence between traditional classification and molecular phylogenetics due to the convergent evolution of various ecomorphic strategies of the lineage. Here, we performed a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of Mantodea based on data from 61 mitogenomes. Our analyses showed that the monophyly of Acanthopidae, Haaniidae, Nanomantidae, Miomantidae and Mantidea was supported. The newly updated Gonypetidae were paraphyletic, whereas Eremiaphilidae, Deroplatyidae and Toxoderidae were polyphyletic. Our molecular dating analyses inferred that Spinomantodea originated at ca. 149 Ma (Late Jurassic), whereas the origin of hearing mantises (Cernomantodea) was inferred as Early Cretaceous (119 Ma, 95% CI: 110–129 Ma). The molecular dating results indicated that the hearing organ in mantises did not arise in response to bat predation. Our study provides a robust framework for further evolutionary comparative studies of mantises.
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.
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 it