A Way Through the Trees: Molecular Phylogenies Consistently Recover Two Clades of <i>Aedes</i> Mosquitoes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Phylogenetic analyses of molecular data have been critical in resolving deep and shallow relationships across the tree of life. Such analyses have provided clarity where traditional morphological analyses may not have, and have been instrumental in a range of evolutionary, systematic, and taxonomic studies for providing clarity to evolutionary relationships. One such case where evolutionary relationships are poorly understood is in the mosquito genus Aedes . Although this medically important genus of insects has received significant study, the majority of research has focused on those relatively few species that are invasive and transmit pathogens which cause disease. As a result, evolutionary relationships between Aedes mosquitoes are poorly understood, and the classification of the genus has been contentious, with numerous taxonomic changes over the last two decades being undertaken and reversed based entirely on analyses of somewhat limited morphological data. As a result, we conducted a literature review of molecular phylogenies and evaluated classificatory hypotheses under a framework based on observations of frequently occurring relationships among mosquito genera and subgenera. We found that molecular phylogenies consistently reflect two distinct clades of Aedes mosquitoes, each with other Aedini genera within them. We discuss these results in the context of ongoing debates over Aedes nomenclature. Our review demonstrates the ability for molecular phylogenies to aid in resolving long-standing debates on nomenclature. Highlights The genus Aedes, in the tribe Aedini, contains many of the world’s most important disease vector mosquitoes, such as the yellow fever mosquito Aedes aegypti. The phylogeny of the genus Aedes remains contentious, leading to repeated and often confusing changes in taxonomy and nomenclature. No comprehensive molecular phylogenies of the genus Aedes have been published the, but Aedes species have been included in many phylogenetic analyses. Molecular phylogenies demonstrate consistent results: There are two major clades of Aedes mosquitoes, neither of which are monophyletic. Graphical Abstract
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".