MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6894263865 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.8169882

Cybaeina Chamberlin and Ivie

2023· article· en· W6894263865 sur OpenAlexaffabout

Notice bibliographique

RevueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEarth and Planetary Sciences
ThématiqueSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy
Établissements canadiensImmunoPrecise (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSetaSpiderGenusNearctic ecozoneAnomala

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Genus Cybaeina Chamberlin and Ivie Cybaeus (in part) Banks 1906: 95. Cybaeina Chamberlin & Ivie 1932: 28, figs 5–14, 28–30; Chamberlin & Ivie 1942: 19, fig. 38; Roth 1952 (in part): 195, figs 1, 3, 6; Roewer 1954: 86 (in part); Bonnet 1956 (in part): 1296; Roth & Brame 1972 (in part): 16, figs 21–22; Roth & Brown 1986 (in part): 2; Bennett 2005: 88, figs 22.19–22.21, 22.24–22.25, 22.27–22.34; Bennett 2017: 99, figs 23.19–23.21, 23.24–23.25, 23.27–23.34; World Spider Catalog 2023 (in part). Type species. Cybaeus minutus Banks 1906 by original designation (Chamberlin and Ivie 1932). Etymology. The genus name Cybaeina is derived from Cybaeus L. Koch and is feminine in gender. Diagnosis. The males and females of the Nearctic genera of Cybaeinae are readily separated into two groups on the basis of tibia I and II ventral macrosetal characters: members of Cybaeina Chamberlin and Ivie, Neocybaeina Bennett gen. nov., Rothaeina Bennett gen. nov., and Cybaeota Chamberlin & Ivie have four or five pairs of conspicuous elongate, often overlapping macrosetae (Fig. 2) versus Allocybaeina Bennett, Cybaeozyga Chamberlin & Ivie, Cybaeus L. Koch, and Pseudocybaeota Bennett which have only two or three pairs of shorter and nonoverlapping macrosetae (as in Copley et al. 2009: fig. 14; Bennett 2017: fig. 23.14). Both sexes of Cybaeota can be separated from those of Cybaeina, Neocybaeina gen. nov. and Rothaeina gen. nov. by the absence of a retrolateral patellar apophysis and associated peg setae on the male pedipalp and the relatively simple vulva dominated by very large, rounded spermathecal bases (Bennett 1988: figs 25, 28, 35, 38). In Cybaeina, Neocybaeina gen. nov., and Rothaeina gen. nov., a retrolateral patellar apophysis and associated peg setae are present (Figs 9, 18, 33, 59, 64) and the vulva is relatively complex with the spermathecal bases undifferentiated from the spermathecal heads and stalks (Figs 20, 67, 77) or the bases are relatively small, less rounded, and not dominating the vulva (Figs 23, 42). Females of Cybaeina, Neocybaeina gen. nov., and Rothaeina gen. nov. are readily distinguished by vulval morphology. In females of Cybaeina, the copulatory ducts are elongate, lightly sclerotized, and encircle the spermathecal stalks (Figs 20–21, 23–24, 26–27). In Neocybaeina gen. nov. and Rothaeina gen. nov., the copulatory ducts are very short, heavily sclerotized, and do not encircle the stalks (Figs 39, 41, 68–69, 73–74, 76, 78). The males of these three genera, however, are not easily diagnosed; separation of them requires careful referral to a combination of characters of the pedipalp and comparison with published illustrations. In addition, the male of only one of the two species of Neocybaeina gen. nov., N. xantha (Chamberlin & Ivie) comb. nov., is known; the unknown male of N. burnetti spec. nov. may not fit the genus diagnoses presented in this paper. The following characteristics may be helpful in distinguishing the males of these three genera. In the males of all three, the patellar apophysis is quite short (Figs 11, 13) to approximately as long as the width of the patella (Figs 31–34, 53, 62). When elongate, however, the tip of the patellar apophysis is retrolaterad in Cybaeina (Fig. 9) versus dorsad or distad in Neocybaeina xantha comb. nov. (Figs 31, 33) and Rothaeina gen. nov. (Figs 53, 57, 59). As well, in males of Cybaeina, the medial component of the retrolateral tibial apophysis is blade- or ledge-like and distally acuminate (Figs 10–12, 14–17) or terminating in a single elongate basally articulated macroseta (Figs 8–9) whereas in males of Neocybaeina xantha comb. nov. and most species of Rothaeina gen. nov. the medial component is reduced to a single rigid spine-like process or basally articulated macroseta (Figs 31–35, 53, 56–59, 61) or, in R. mackinleyi spec. nov., is a simple elongate ledge not terminating anteriorly in such a process or macroseta (Fig. 54). Description. As for Cybaeus (see Copley et al. 2009) and in genus diagnosis in this paper.Additional descriptive characters presented here. Small- to medium-sized spiders, carapace lengths averaging 1.80–2.23 mm (males) and 1.85–2.02 mm (females); females usually slightly smaller than males. Eight eyes (Fig. 1) similar to Cybaeus (Copley et al. 2009); anterior median eyes smallest, about 1/2 diameter of anterior lateral eyes. Legs pale yellow to light reddish brown, unmarked. Four (C. confusa) or five complete pairs of ventral tibia I macrosetae; pattern usually 2(+1p)-2-1p-2-2-2-0 or 2(+1p)-2-1p-2-2-0. Abdomen pale to light gray without markings. Colulus a low swelling marked by two clumps of very few setae. Male: Patellar apophysis (Figs 8–14) with two to nine peg setae. Distal component of retrolateral tibial apophysis (Figs 8, 10, 12, 14, 16) nearly as long as pedipalpal tibia, usually slightly extended distally. Genital bulb with very long, thin, simple embolus (Figs 3–7); distal arm of tegular apophysis well developed with narrow (Fig. 6), tapering (Fig. 5), or slightly expanded tip (Figs 3–4); proximal arm well developed but simple: elongate, slightly twisted with acuminate tip (Figs 3–7). Female: Epigyne (Figs 19, 22, 25) simple with single, transverse atrium medially or postero-medially. Vulva (Figs 20–21, 23–24, 26–27) with long, slender, weakly sclerotized copulatory ducts, broadly or narrowly contiguous at atrium, looped around spermathecal stalks once to up to 2.5 times; spermathecal heads at anterior margin of vulva; spermathecal stalks relatively elongate, convoluted, narrow; spermathecal bases small, rounded or undifferentiated from stalks; fertilization ducts exit bases posteriorly; Bennett’s glands hidden by copulatory ducts or conspicuous. Composition and distribution. (Fig. 28). Cybaeina is endemic to coastal western North America from Haida Gwaii and the adjacent mainland islands of British Columbia, Canada to Washington and Oregon, United States of America. We recognize three species: Cybaeina confusa, C. dixoni spec. nov., and C. minuta. All are rarely encountered; C. dixoni spec. nov. is known only from southwestern Curry County, Oregon; C. confusa and C. minuta are relatively widespread with records from west coastal North America from British Columbia south to Oregon (C. confusa has not been recorded in Washington). Key to the species of Cybaeina 1. Four pairs of elongate, overlapping ventral tibia I macrosetae. Patellar apophysis about 1/2 width of patella with three or four peg setae (Figs 8–9); medial component of retrolateral tibial apophysis distally terminated with single basally articulated macroseta (Figs 8–9); distal arm of tegular apophysis dorsad, tip slightly expanded (Figs 3–4). Spermathecal bases undifferentiated, indistinguishable from spermathecal stalks (Figs 20–21); Bennett’s glands hidden within coils of vulval ducts........................................................................................... confusa Chamberlin & Ivie - Usually five pairs of elongate, overlapping ventral tibia I macrosetae (as in Bennett 2017: fig. 23.13). Other characters not as above............................................................................................... 2 2(1). Patellar apophysis short, dorsoventrally broad with about nine peg setae (Figs 10–11, 14); medial component of retrolateral tibial apophysis a distinct angular, distally acuminate ledge (Figs 10–11, 14–15). Copulatory ducts make one complete loop around spermathecal stalks (Figs 26–27); Bennett’s glands prominent in dorsal view (Fig. 27)..... dixoni Bennett spec. nov. - Patellar apophysis small, with two peg setae (Figs 12–13); medial component of retrolateral tibial apophysis inconspicuous except for an elongate acuminate process distally (Figs 12, 16–17). Copulatory ducts make about 2.5 loops around spermathecal stalks (Figs 23–24); Bennett’s glands inconspicuous............................................... minuta (Banks)

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)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,018
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,036

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,002

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 Opus0,067
Tête enseignante GPT0,205
Écart entre enseignants0,137 · 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'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

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
Publié2023
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Même sujetSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomyTravaux en français237 207