Data from: Morphological and genetic analysis of sympatric dace within the Rhinichthys cataractae species complex: a case of isolation lost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractThe Nooksack dace (Pisces: an undescribed putative taxon within Rhinichthys) and longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) are two forms within the R. cataractae species complex that are distinguishable from one another by mitochondrial (mt) DNA divergence of 2–3%, as well as by subtle morphological differences. The two forms are found in allopatry in south-eastern British Columbia (BC), Canada, and adjacent areas of western Washington, USA, and are sympatric in three streams in the lower Fraser River valley, BC, and may represent cryptic species. We assayed 12 morphometric traits and two meristic characters (N = 582; 23 sampling locations) to test for diagnosability of the two dace, as well as to test for morphological differentiation by mtDNA type in sympatry. We then employed a 10-locus microsatellite DNA assay (N = 374; 12 sampling locations) to test for genetic distinction between Nooksack dace and longnose dace in sympatry. We found that the two dace could not be reliably differentiated morphologically: there was overlap in all characters measured, and sampling location had a much larger effect on morphology than mtDNA group. Microsatellite analysis showed no distinction by mtDNA type in localities with sympatric dace, indicating complete admixture between the sympatric Nooksack dace and longnose dace. The Nooksack dace and longnose dace provide an example of ‘ephemeral speciation’: two lineages that, despite an estimated 1.1 Myr of isolation, have developed no apparent barriers to reproduction and appear to have collapsed into a single interbreeding population where they come into secondary contact. Nonetheless, the zone of secondary contact and the diagnosability of the Nooksack dace in terms of mtDNA represent significant aspects of the evolutionary legacy within R. cataractae and support its conservation importance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".