Phylogenetic relationships and divergence dating of Mantodea using mitochondrial phylogenomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mantodea is a predatory insect group, its members occupying a diverse array of widely distributed habitats. Praying mantis species utilize hunting strategies including remarkable mimicry and unique camouflage for hiding from natural enemies while catching their prey. The emergence of a “cyclopean ear” in mantises is thought to be a morphological innovation of the group, and an “arms race” with echolocating bats is one of the hypotheses put forward to account for the emergence of the mantis ear from a coevolutionary perspective. However, this hypothesis has not been rigorously tested because of a lack of robust higher‐level phylogeny and a detailed chronogram of Mantodea. Previous phylogenetic studies found an incongruence between traditional classification and molecular phylogenetics due to the convergent evolution of various ecomorphic strategies of the lineage. Here, we performed a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis of Mantodea based on data from 61 mitogenomes. Our analyses showed that the monophyly of Acanthopidae, Haaniidae, Nanomantidae, Miomantidae and Mantidea was supported. The newly updated Gonypetidae were paraphyletic, whereas Eremiaphilidae, Deroplatyidae and Toxoderidae were polyphyletic. Our molecular dating analyses inferred that Spinomantodea originated at ca. 149 Ma (Late Jurassic), whereas the origin of hearing mantises (Cernomantodea) was inferred as Early Cretaceous (119 Ma, 95% CI: 110–129 Ma). The molecular dating results indicated that the hearing organ in mantises did not arise in response to bat predation. Our study provides a robust framework for further evolutionary comparative studies of mantises.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".