Unmasking the Desert Phantom: Genetic Evidence Does Not Support the Validity of the Enigmatic Boehme's Horned Viper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The viperid genus Cerastes contains four desert‐adapted species distributed throughout the Saharo‐Arabian arid belt that are typically associated with loose sands. Cerastes boehmei is restricted to one locality in Tunisia and is known only from the holotype. Since its description, it has been speculated that this species, which exhibits distinctive horn‐like supraocular scales, could be an aberrant specimen of another desert‐adapted viper of the same genus, C. vipera . In this study, we present genetic data from the holotype specimen of C. boehmei for the first time. We used Sanger and Illumina sequencing and obtained sequences for three mitochondrial genes (12S, 16S, cytb) and three nuclear genes (MC1R, NT‐3, VIM) and constructed two separate phylogenetic trees based on these data sets. Additionally, we generated a phylogenetic analysis based on the coding regions of mitogenomes of all the Cerastes species. The analyses of both the mitochondrial and the nuclear data clearly show that the C. boehmei holotype is nested within C. vipera . Based on our results, we formally synonymise Cerastes boehmei Wagner & Wilms, 2010 with Cerastes vipera (Linnaeus, 1758). This taxonomic revision is supported by robust genetic evidence and will help to resolve the long‐lasting debate concerning the validity of the species.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".