Tetraploidy in the Boettger’s dwarf clawed frog (Pipidae: <i>Hymenochirus boettgeri</i>) from the Congo indicates non-conspecificity with the captive population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cytogenetics can be used as a tool to study the evolution of polyploidy and taxonomy. Here we focus on aquatic African pipids, dwarf clawed frogs (Hymenochirus). Our study reveals that dwarf clawed frogs, present for decades in captivity, are best referred to as Hymenochirus sp. instead of the commonly used name ‘H. boettgeri’ or sometimes ‘H. curtipes’. We present the first karyotype from a morphologically identified specimen of H. boettgeri with a known locality in the north-western Congo, which is tetraploid with 2n = 36. The captive Hymenochirus species has been found diploid in previous studies with different reported chromosome numbers; here we reveal 2n = 20A + 1B chromosomes. Our findings suggest that the tetraploid H. boettgeri karyotype evolved through fusion of two biarmed chromosomes and subsequent allotetraploidization, and is functionally diploid, similar to the origin of tetraploid clawed frogs in the subgenus Xenopus. We observed the stable presence of a single B chromosome in both sexes of our individuals from the captive population of Hymenochirus sp. However, additional investigation is necessary to clarify whether there is variation in the number of A and B chromosomes among populations, individuals, and/or tissues. Further research is also needed to understand the evolution and taxonomy of the genus Hymenochirus.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".