Genus-level review of pocket gophers in the family Geomyidae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pocket gophers (Geomyidae) comprise a well-studied family at the species level but need an updated revision at the generic level because studies of each genus have applied different data sets and different criteria for recognizing distinct taxa. Pocket gophers thrive from temperate Canada south to Panama and Colombia, where they inhabit various habitats, including temperate forests, prairies, steppes, hot and cold deserts, and subtropical and tropical areas. The taxonomy at the genus and species levels underwent many changes in the early twenty-first century due to use of different sequencing methodologies. This article builds upon those analyses to review genus-level relationships within the Geomydae. Specifically, we analyzed the sequences available in Genbank for members of the family Geomyidae (Cytb for 47 species and COI for 33 species). We conducted different phylogenetic analyses; in all cases, genera were classified into monophyletic groups associated with the tribes Geomyini and Thomomyini. In the Thomomyini, the genus Thomomys was recognized with two genera, Megascapheus and Thomomys, which are more genetically distinct than many other genera. In the Geomyini, each genus and subgenus are distinct monophyletic groups with very strong support and large p-distances. The Mississippi River appears to function as an important geographic barrier within Geomys, with marked genetic differentiation between populations on the eastern and western sides of the river. Collectively, our analyses based on mtDNA sequences suggest that a more detailed revision employing multiple data sets is needed for the genera within the Geomyidae.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".