Bibliographic record
Abstract
Superfamily Psylloidea Latreille, 1807 Percy et al. (2018) presented two mitogenome (mtg) phylogenies that we refer to here as the AN tree (‘allnucleotide’ tree) and the CC tree (‘conserved-codon’ tree), as well as a much reduced taxon sampling using a nuclear genome analysis, and a combined mitochondrial and nuclear data analysis. Due to the greater taxon sampling for the mitogenome analyses, we refer mostly to these results here. The results of Cho et al. (2019) are similar to the AN tree. In the main, analyses in Percy et al. (2018) and Cho et al. (2019) had considerable congruence, with notable exceptions discussed below. Both mtg trees are similar and recover the same crown groups. The major difference lies in the basal groupings. The Aphalaridae Löw, 1879, as defined here, is a paraphyletic basal assemblage in the AN tree (also paraphyletic in Cho et al. 2019) and a poorly supported monophylum in the CC tree. Carsidaridae Crawford, 1911 (including Pachypsylla) and Homotomidae Heslop-Harrison, 1958 form a poorly supported sister group in the AN tree and a paraphyletic, basal assemblage in the CC tree. The former hypothesis (i.e., sister family relationship between Carsidaridae (without Pachypsyllinae Crawford, 1914) and Homotomidae) is supported by two putative morphological synapomorphies (Hollis & Broomfield 1989) and is recovered with stronger support in the nuclear genome data in Percy et al. (2018) as well as combined data in Cho et al. (2019). In both mtg trees, the Mastigimatinae Bekker-Migdisova, 1973 constitutes the sister group to a well supported (94%) clade comprising the Liviidae Löw, 1879, as defined here, and the PTCD clade (Psyllidae, Triozidae Löw, 1879, Calophyinae Vondráček, 1957 sensu Burckhardt & Ouvrard (2012), Diaphorina Löw,1880 and Katacephala Crawford, 1914). This grouping differs from that of Burckhardt & Ouvrard (2012) who included Mastigimatinae in their artificial Calophyidae. For this reason, Mastigimatinae is removed from Calophyidae and given family rank here. This move is supported by Cho et al. (2019) although the phylogenetic placement of Mastigimatinae is not identical. The Liviidae, as defined here, is a poorly supported monophylum in the AN tree and paraphyletic in the CC tree. It is also recovered as paraphyletic in combined data analyses in both Percy et al. (2018) and Cho et al. (2019). In both mtg trees, the PTCD clade is very strongly supported (100%) (consistent with Cho et al. 2019), and Calophyidae Vondráček, 1957 (without Mastigimatinae) constitutes the sister taxon of the remainder of taxa in the PTCD clade with good (AN tree) or poor support (CC tree); notably, an alternative placement of Calophyidae as sister to Triozidae (albeit with mixed support) in combined data analyses in both Percy et al. (2018) and Cho et al. (2019) serves to emphasise that phylogenetic placement within the PTCD clade awaits robust confirmation. The support of the monophyly of Psyllidae (including Diaphorina and Katacephala) is good (AN tree) or poor (CC tree) and that of Triozidae very strong in both trees (99%). Again, due to ambiguity in the placement of Diaphorina in the combined data analysis in Percy et al. (2018), additional analyses will be required for robust confirmation. In summary, not all taxonomic groups recognized here are strongly supported as monophyla in all or any of the molecular analyses, in some cases we have erred on the side of providing a practical and stable classification, particularly where ambiguity in molecular analyses remains. A summary of family interrelationships adopted here is shown in Fig. 1.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.005 |
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".