Complex Hybridization in a Clade of Polytypic Salamanders (Plethodontidae: <i>Desmognathus</i> ) Uncovered by Estimating Higher-Level Phylogenetic Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hybridization between incipient lineages is a common feature of ecomorphological diversification. We examine these phenomena in the Pisgah clade of Desmognathus salamanders from the southern Appalachian Mountains of the eastern United States. The group contains four to seven species exhibiting two discrete phenotypes, aquatic “shovel-nosed” and semi-aquatic “black-bellied” forms. These ecomorphologies are ancient and have apparently been transmitted repeatedly between lineages through introgression. Geographically proximate populations of both phenotypes exhibit admixture, and at least two black-bellied lineages have been produced via reticulations between shovel-nosed parentals, suggesting complex transmission dynamics. However, computational constraints currently limit our ability to reconstruct network radiations from gene-tree data. Available methods are limited to level-1 networks wherein reticulations do not share edges, and higher-level networks may be non-identifiable in many cases. We present a heuristic approach to recover information from higher-level networks across a range of potentially identifiable empirical scenarios, supported by theory and simulation. When extrinsic information indicating the location and direction of hybridization events is available, our method can yield successful estimates of non-level-1 networks, or at least a reduced possible set thereof. Phylogenomic data strongly support a single backbone topology with up to five overlapping hybrid edges. These results suggest an unusual mechanism of ecomorphological hybrid speciation, wherein a binary threshold trait causes hybrids to shift between two microhabitat niches, promoting ecological divergence between sympatric hybrids and parentals. This contrasts with other well-known systems in which hybrids exhibit intermediate, novel, or transgressive phenotypes. Finally, the genetic basis of these phenotypes is unclear and further data are needed to clarify the evolutionary basis of morphological changes with ecological consequences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".