MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6948963987 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.10838627

Camptonotus Uhler 1864

2024· article· en· W6948963987 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Thématiquebioluminescence and chemiluminescence research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésApex (geometry)FemurSimple eye in invertebratesSternumLobeHolotype

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Camptonotus Uhler, 1864 Redescription. Small to medium size (body length 11–15 mm). Coloration. Yellowish or ocher with brown tones, and generally with the posterior margin of tergites outlined in black or dark brown; last tergites usually brown dorsally (Fig. 1). Head. Space between antennal sockets 1.5 times wider than the antennal scape; ocelli rounded, small, and diffuse; maxillary palps elongated, fourth and fifth segments similar in size, third segment a little smaller than the next one, fifth segment slightly dilated at the apex; labial palpi robust, the last segment noticeably dilated and with truncated apex (Fig. 1A). Thorax. Pronotum narrow and smooth, with quadrangular disc (Fig. 1B); lateral lobes almost as wide as high, with v-sulcation decided, anterior and posterior margins rounded (Fig. 1A). Auditory spiracle below the lower margin of the lateral lobe of the pronotum armed with a small conical fold, attached on the mesothorax. Sternum lobes are rounded and narrow, without prolongations; mesosternum quadrangular with the anterior margin 1.5 wider than the posterior one; metasternum triangular and narrow. Legs. Fore coxa armed with a tubercle dorsally. Fore and mid femora unarmed; fore and middle tibiae with three medium-size spurs on each ventral margin and one spur on each side of the ventral-apex; hind femur robust, ventrally armed; hind tibia armed with small spines dorsally and few sinules ventrally, apex with three spurs on each side, being the upper and mid one the longer and similar in length (Fig. 1A). Wings. Absent, completely apterous, without cuticular folds or projections (Fig. 1B). Abdomen. Stridulatory apparatus present on the sides of the first and second tergites. Last tergite little produced, and posterior margin rounded. Cerci short, almost cylindrical; paraprocts unmodified. Subgenital plate almost as long as wide, posterior margin with a central v-shaped notch, stylli cylindrical and mid-sized. Female. Similar coloration as the males, but with the last two or three tergites black dorsally. Last tergite without modifications; subgenital plate subtriangular; ovipositor as long as the hind femur, curving moderately upwards. Taxa included. Camptonotus carolinensis (Gerstaecker, 1860) (type species) and C. affinis Rehn, 1903. Comments. So far, five species are included in Camptonotus. Still, only two species will be grouped here, and the others are relocated to other taxa that are also studied in this contribution. This genus was originally described compared with Ceuthophilus Scudder, 1862 (Rhaphidophoridae), suggesting that it could be a link between Rhaphidophorids and green “ Locustina ” (currently Tettigoniidae) (Uhler 1864). The description of the genus included the description of a single species, Camptonotus scuddderi Uhler, 1864. The type specimen was not officially designated, and is presumed to be a female, as no description of males is included. The measurements provided by the author have ranges, so Uhler (1864) must had observed several females to describe the species. However, he does not record any specimen and only mentions that he saw a specimen from Delaware and another from Baltimore (United States). Thus, the species should be invalidated. Later, Caudell (1904) observed the biology of C. carolinensis (Gerstaecker, 1860), mentioning that it coincided with C. scudderi, without official synonymization of both names. However, the following authors who studied or recorded the species kept the name C. carolinensis, which is correct due to the principle of priority. Mc Atee (1908) complements and describes in detail how C. carolinensis rolled leaves and joined them with silk from its mouth, the records of Caudell (1904) and Mc Atee (1908) being the first and only records of this behavior of gryllacrids in the new world. C. carolinensis is distributed in the eastern United States and Canada (only recorded for Ontario) (Paiero & Marshall 2014, Cigliano et al. 2024). Official descriptions of males have not been published, so it is important to review specimens in their distributional range and verify if this is a single species, or if additional species might exist. The second species included in this genus is Camptonotus affinis Rehn, 1903 (Fig. 1), originally described from Jalapa, Veracruz, Mexico (Rehn 1903). A male of this species was mistakenly identified as Neortus carolinensis by Bruner von Wattenwyl (1888) (Fig. 1). The same male was also studied by Karny (1929), identifying it as C. carolinenesis, although the same author corrects his identification in his contribution to Genera Insectorum (Karny 1937). However, Hebard (1932) clarified this confusion by differentiating the two species in a taxonomic key. Little is known about C. affinis, and only one additional record has been provided by Barrientos et al. (2013) from Gómez Farías, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Other distributional data from iNaturalist is provided here for the states of Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Puebla, and Hidalgo (Table 1 and Map 1).

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: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,024
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,081

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0010,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0240,005

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 Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,259
Écart entre enseignants0,238 · 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
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Même sujetbioluminescence and chemiluminescence researchTravaux en français237 207