Bamboozled! Resolving deep evolutionary nodes within the phylogeny of bamboo corals (Octocorallia: Scleralcyonacea: Keratoisididae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keratoisididae is a globally distributed, and exclusively deep-sea, family of octocorals that contains species and genera that are polyphyletic. An alphanumeric system, based on a three-gene-region phylogeny, is widely used to describe the biodiversity within this family. That phylogeny identified 12 major groups although it did not have enough signal to explore the relationships among groups. Using increased phylogenomic resolution generated from Ultraconserved Elements and exons (i.e. conserved elements), we aim to resolve deeper nodes within the family and investigate the relationships among those predefined groups. In total, 109 libraries of conserved elements were generated from individuals representing both the genetic and morphological diversity of our keratoisidids. In addition, the conserved element data of 12 individuals from previous studies were included. Our taxon sampling included 11 of the 12 keratoisidid groups. We present two phylogenies, constructed from a 75% (231 loci) and 50% (1729 loci) taxon occupancy matrix respectively, using both Maximum Likelihood and Multiple Species Coalescence methods. These trees were congruent at deep nodes. As expected, S1 keratoisidids were recovered as a well-supported sister clade to the rest of the bamboo corals. S1 corals do not share the same mitochondrial gene arrangement found in other members of Keratoisididae. All other bamboo corals were recovered within two major clades. Clade I comprises individuals assigned to alphanumeric groups B1, C1, D1&D2, F1, H1, I4, and J3 while Clade II contains representatives from A1, I1, and M1. By combining genomics with already published morphological data, we provide evidence that group H1 is not monophyletic, and that the division between other groups - D1 and D2, and A1 and M1 - needs to be reconsidered. Overall, there is a lack of robust morphological markers within Keratoisididae, but subtle characters such as sclerite microstructure and ornamentation seem to be shared within groups and warrant further investigation as taxonomically diagnostic characters.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".