Phylogeny, biogeography and morphological evolution of the treehopper‐like leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) Megophthalminae and Ulopinae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent phylogenetic analyses of anchored‐hybrid, transcriptomic and morphological data have consistently recovered a clade comprising the three previously recognized families of treehoppers (Hemiptera), Aetalionidae, Melizoderidae and Membracidae, as well as two groups traditionally included in the leafhopper family Cicadellidae as subfamilies Megophthalminae and Ulopinae. To reconstruct the phylogeny of these two groups of treehopper‐like leafhoppers, maximum likelihood and multi‐species coalescent analyses were performed on a molecular DNA dataset consisting of ~700 anchored hybrid loci representing 84 terminal taxa. Analyses based on different dataset subsets and approaches yielded largely congruent topologies, although the relationships among Megophthalminae, Ulopinae and treehoppers are still unstable. The monophyly of both subfamilies is strongly supported, but several tribes, including Agalliini, Cephalelini, Megophthalmini and Ulopini, are recovered as non‐monophyletic. The origin of Megophthalminae and Ulopinae was estimated as early Cretaceous (~140 million years ago), and the divergence within each subfamily began in the mid‐Cretaceous. Continental‐scale biogeographic structure is evident in these two groups, with genera occurring on the same continent tending to group together regardless of tribal placement, suggesting that extensive morphological convergence occurred among faunas inhabiting different regions. Ancestral microhabitat reconstruction suggested that megophthalmine and ulopine leafhoppers originally lived on trees or shrubs and later several groups evolved independently to inhabit leaf litter and soil. Convergent modifications of the ocelli, forewings and hindwings accompanied changes in microhabitat preference.
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 | 0.000 | 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".