MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6893770432 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3717844

Ctenothrips kwanzanensis Takahashi 1937

2020· article· en· W6893770432 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiquePlant and Biological Electrophysiology Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHolotypeHead (geology)Character (mathematics)WingDorsum

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Ctenothrips kwanzanensis Takahashi Ctenothrips kwanzanensis Takahashi, 1937: 339. Ctenothrips nonnae Haga & Okajima, 1989: 49. Syn.n. Ctenothrips leionotus Tong & Zhang, 1992: 48. Syn.n. Ctenothrips cornipennis Han, 1997: 539. Syn.n. Ctenothrips taibaishanensis Feng, Zhang & Wang, 2003: 175. Syn.n. Ctenothrips guizhouensis Xie, Zhang& Li, 2011: 66. Syn.n. Ctenothrips yangi Xie, Yuan, Li & Zhang, 2013: 611. Syn.n. (Figs 2, 36–38, 43, 47, 54–59) This species was described from two females collected in the mountain areas of Taiwan. The description stated that there were three pairs of pronotal posteromarginal setae, and that antennal segment III was as long as segment IV. However, we have examined the type specimens and found only two pairs of pronotal posteromarginal setae, and antennal segment III longer than IV. These corrected character states were clear in the illustration published by Wang (2002). - C. nonnae was described from a series of females collected from mountain areas in Japan (Fig. 59). It was distinguished from the description of kwanzanensis by its larger body, and antennal segment III longer than IV. However, as indicated above, the original description of the antennae of kwanzanensis was incorrect, and specimens of kwanzanensis have the body ranging in size from 1850 to 2200 microns, overlapping the size of nonnae that has been studied. - C. leionotus (Fig. 56) was described from a male holotype and two females, all of which are severely compressed on their slide mounts. The species was distinguished from nonnae by head length, head constriction behind eyes and numbers of fore wing setae, but comparisons of head length and shape based on compressed specimens are not reliable. Moreover, comparisons of the number of fore wing setae between fully winged leionotus and shortwinged nonnae are not valid. - C. cornipennis (Fig. 57) was described from three poorly mounted females. It was differentiated from leionotus only by tiny differences in antennal segment ratios and setae lengths. The comparative data are based on insufficient specimens, and the measurements were from a female of cornipennis but the male of leionotus. - C. taibaishanensis (Figs 54, 55) was described from two females and one male taken on grass. It was only briefly compared to distinctus and also to the incorrect original description of kwanzanensis. - C. guizhouensis (Fig. 58) was described from 21 females and distinguished from kwanzanensis on the basis of the original incorrect description. It was distinguished from taibaishanensis by having polygonally reticulate sculpture on the mesonotum, and abdominal sternite VII posteromarginal setae on the posterior margin. But the type specimens of both guizhouensis and yangi have abdominal sternite VII posteromarginal setae in front of the posterior margin. The specimens of all the names mentioned above have reticulate sculpture on the mesonotum, though these reticulations vary in size and shape between individuals. - C. yangi was described from 19 females and 10 males, but the distinguishing characters given have been found to be largely unreliable when compared to more extensive collections. In the key provided by Xie et al. (2011), the colour patterns of antennal segments and fore wings were used frequently, but those differences were derived from descriptions that were based on inadequate specimens. After studying considerably more specimens of this genus we consider that the colours are influenced by the maturity of individuals, together with the techniques used in slide-mounting. In the series of specimens of yangi from Yunnan (also bridwelli from Alberta and distinctus from Norway), variation in antennal and fore wing colour is readily observed (Figs 36–38). It seems that kwanzanensis and the six synonyms indicated represent a single common species that is widely distributed in mountain areas of China and Japan. Although kwanzanensis usually can be distinguished from bridwelli and distinctus by the characters given in the key above, there is still some overlap among these characters, with bridwelli occasionally having paler tibiae. Similarly, although bridwelli always has short ocellar setae III, individuals within a population from Québec were noted to have quite long ocellar setae III, especially the males. Therefore, there remains a possibility that the three names retained in the key above might represent a single widespread and variable species. Material examined: CHINA, Shaanxi, Mt. Taibai, 1 female, 1 male from grass, 15.vii.2002 (G.L. Zhang); Sichuan, Pingwu, Baimaxiang, Wanglang National Nature Reserve (32°26’N, 104°22’E), 3 females from Paeonia, 1.viii.2016 (B.Q. Pan) (SCAU); Laohegou Nature Reserve (32°31’N, 104°41’E), 1 male from grass, 7.v.2013 (C. Zhao); Chongqing, Wushan, Liziping, alt. 1800m, 1 female, 19.v.1994 (J. Yao); Hubei, Shennongjia National Na- ture Reserve (31º29’ N, 110º18’E), alt. 2200m, 2 females, 1 male from grass, 15.vii.1987 (S.P. Shen); 1 female from Spiraea, 28.vii.2014 (X.L. Tong); Hunan, Liuyang, Daweishan, Qixingling scenic region (28°26’N, 114°09’E), alt. 1500m, 1 male from Lophatherum, 16.viii.2016 (Z.H. Wang); Guizhou, Zunyi, 2 females from Galium flower (Rubiaceae), 29.iv.2009 (H. R. Zhang); Taiwan, 1 female, vi.1936 (Takahashi); 1 female from Nantou, Tianchi, viii.1992 (C.L.Wang). JAPAN, Nagano Pref., Jiigatake, 1 female, 13.viii.1973 (K. Haga).

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,016

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,059
Tête enseignante GPT0,204
Écart entre enseignants0,145 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Même sujetPlant and Biological Electrophysiology StudiesTravaux en français237 207