Erebia (Erebia) pawloskii Menetries 1859
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Erebia (Erebia) pawloskii Ménétriés, 1859 is confirmed as a species distinct from Erebia theano (Tauscher, 1806) and Erebia stubbendorfii Ménétriés, 1847 Nuclear genome phylogeny reveals that Erebia (Erebia) theano (Tauscher, 1806) (type locality in Altai Mts.) (Fig. 3a brown), Erebia (Erebia) stubbendorfii Ménétriés, 1847 (type locality Russia: Kansk) (Fig. 3a olive), and Erebia (Erebia) pawloskii Ménétriés, 1859 (type locality in Russia: Sakha) (Fig. 3a purple, blue, magenta, green, dark blue, and cyan, with the nominate in blue), form strongly supported (100% ultrafast bootstrap (Minh et al. 2013)) clades genetically differentiated at the species level, e.g., their Fst values are: 0.36 (E. theano and E. stubbendorfii), 0.36 (E. theano and E. pawloskii), and 0.28 (E. stubbendorfii and E. pawloskii). Therefore, genomic analysis supports the three distinct species hypothesis (Lukhtanov and Lukhtanov 1994; Gorbunov 2001) and suggests that the name stubbendorfii should not be applied to E. pawloskii. Curiously, mitochondrial genome phylogeny is different, and reveals two major haplotypes for these species, split by geography: the Old World haplotype (including the North Slope of Alaska, USA) and the New World haplotype (the rest of Alaska, Canada, and the US) (Fig. 3b). Similar evolutionary scenarios, likely resulting from mitochondrial introgression, are known in other butterfly groups, such as Junonia Hübner, [1819] (Gemmell and Marcus 2015), and offer a cautionary lesson against relying solely on mitochondrial data (e.g., COI barcodes) to address species delimitation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".