Phylogeny of euophryine jumping spiders from ultra‐conserved elements, with evidence on the intersexual coevolution of genitalia (Araneae: Salticidae: Euophryini)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Knowledge of phylogeny is required to understand the evolution of highly diverse groups such as the euophryine jumping spiders, a lineage showing high species and morphological diversity. In this study, we applied a phylogenomic approach using ultra‐conserved elements (UCE) obtained from 145 taxa to infer the phylogeny of euophryine jumping spiders. The results provide a well‐supported phylogenetic framework for Euophryini, especially for the deeper relationships, in which the monophyly of Euophryini, as well as most clades corresponding to a genus or a group of closely related genera, are strongly supported. Additionally, the evolutionary patterns of male embolus length and female copulatory duct length of 117 euophryine species were investigated through ancestral character state reconstruction and phylogenetically independent contrast analyses using the UCE phylogenetic framework. The results suggest strongly that the evolution of the lengths of male embolus and female copulatory duct in Euophryini is positively correlated. The common ancestor of Euophryini likely had relatively short embolus and copulatory duct, followed by repeated lengthening or shortening of both structures in different lineages. Possible mechanisms that may have caused this intersexual coevolution pattern in Euophryini are discussed. This study advances our understandings of the phylogeny, systematics and genitalic evolution of euophryines, providing a solid foundation for future studies on the diversification and evolution of this jumping spider group.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".