Vibilia armata Bovallius 1887
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Vibilia armata Bovallius (Figs 12 & 13) Vibilia armata Bovallius, 1887a: 10. — Bovallius 1887c: 69–70, pl. 10, figs 15–22. Vosseler 1901: 125. Lo Bianco 1901: 446. Walker 1903: 232. Lo Bianco 1904: 42, pl. 21, fig. 62. Stebbing 1904: 31. Tattersall 1906: 15. Sexton 1911: 222. Behning & Woltereck 1912: 5. Behning 1913a: 529, 533. Behning 1913b: 220. Stewart 1913: 250. Stephensen 1918: 46–52, figs 15– 16, chart 6. Behning 1925: 491–494, figs 52–61. Barnard 1925: 376. Chevreux & Fage 1925: 387–388, fig. 391. Behning 1927: 119, 121 (Table). Schellenberg 1927: 618, fig. 27. Pirlot 1929: 100–101. Barnard 1930: 404. Pirlot 1930: 11. Barnard 1931: 126. Barnard 1932: 264– 265. Stephensen 1933: 64. Chevreux 1935: 169170. Barnard 1937: 182. Reid 1955: 13. Guiler 1952: 31. Hurley 1956: 10–11. Irie 1959: Table 4. Hurley 1960b: 279. Evans 1961: 203. Kane 1962: 299. Vinogradov 1962: 16. Laval 1963: 1389–1392, figs 1B, 2. Siegfried 1963: 8. Pillai 1966 b: 203–207, fig. 1. Brusca 1967a: 388–389. Brusca 1967b: 453. Hurley 1969: 33, pl. 18 (map 3).’ Dick 1970: 51–52. Yoo 1971: 50, fig. 6 (distn. map). Brusca 1973: 12–13. Semenova 1973: 173–174. Laval 1974: 57–87. Lorz & Pearcy 1975: 1444. Semenova 1976: 139. Thurston 1976: 402–404, fig. 5 (graphs). Shulenberger 1977: 378 (Table). Tranter 1977: 646, 648 (Table), 659. Zeidler 1978: 5–6, fig. 2. Brusca 1981: 17 (key), 39, fig. 4c, 4e. Watson & Chaloupka 1982: 29, fig. 6–3. Vinogradov et al. 1982: 226–228, fig. 112. Young & Anderson 1987: 716 (Table). Barkhatov & Vinogradov 1988: 168 (Table), 170, 171, 173. Vinogradov 1990a: 56. Zeidler 1992: 92. De Broyer & Jazdzewski 1993: 111. Vinogradov 1993: 43 (Table). Shih & Chen 1995: 42–44, figs 20, 21. Zeidler 1998: 3334. Barkhatov et al. 1999: 808 (Table). Vinogradov 1999: 1179, fig. 4.80. Vibilia gracilis Bovallius 1887a: 9. – Bovallius 1887c: 65–66, pl. 9, figs 14–28. Vibilia gracilenta Bovallius 1887a: 9–10. — Bovallius 1887c: 67–68, pl. 10, figs 1–14. Vosseler 1901: 125. Walker 1909: 50, 53. Stewart 1913: 250–251. Barnard 1925: 376–377. Chevreux 1935: 173. Vibilia erratica Chevreux 1892: 32–35, figs 1–3. — Chevreux 1935: 170–172, pl. 16, figs 14, 25, 31. Type material Type material of V. armata could not be located at the SMNH, ZMUC or in Uppsala and is considered lost. However the description and figures of V. armata by Bovallius (1887c) readily distinguish this species. No precise type locality is given by Bovallius (1887a, c). He merely lists the distribution as “South Atlantic” (1887a), and “tropical parts of the Atlantic, and the South Atlantic” (1887c). Type material of synonyms Type material of V. gracilis and V. gracilenta could not be located at the SMNH, ZMUC or in Uppsala and is considered lost. The specific differences attributed to these two species by Bovallius (1887a, c) are considered minor, and within the range of the specific limits of V. armata. Type material of V. erratica could not be located in the MNHN or MOM and is considered lost. However, the descriptions and figures of Chevreux (1892, 1935) readily confirm the synonymy. Also, eight specimens from the Norman Collection (11,7269), in the BMNH, labelled “ Types, Antibes S. France ”, are clearly V. armata. Material examined (> 400 specimens) Coral Sea: 2 lots (BMNH), 2 specimens. Tasman Sea: 1 lot (AM), 34 lots (SAMA), 3 lots (ZMUC), numerous specimens. North Atlantic: 3 lots (BMNH), 5 lots (USNM), 2 lots (ZMH), 19 lots (ZMB), 28 lots (ZMUC), numerous specimens. South Atlantic: 8 lots (BMNH), 14 lots (USNM), 20 lots (SAM), 28 lots (ZMB), 1 lot (ZMUC), numerous specimens. Mediterranean: numerous lots (ZMUC). North Pacific: several lots (LACM), 10 lots (USNM), numerous specimens. South Pacific: 1 lot (USNM), numerous specimens. Central IndoPacific: 3 lots (BMNH), 1 lot (CAS), 2 lots (USNM), numerous specimens. South Indian: 1 lot (BMNH), 33 lots (SAM), 3 lots (SAMA), numerous specimens. Arabian Sea: 5 lots (BMNH), 57 specimens. Diagnosis Body length up to 13 mm but usually 5–8 mm. Antennae 1 slightly shorter than head and first two pereonites; flagellum elongated, lanceolate, almost diamondshaped, ending in sharp point terminally. Gnathopod 2; carpal process about as long as propodus; anterodistal corner of propodus slightly produced over dactylus. Pereopods 3 & 4; dactylus length slightly more than half propodus. Pereopods 5 & 6; dactylus length about half propodus. Pereopod 7; basis rectangular, slightly dilated posteriorly, width about 0.7x length, about as long as ischium to carpus combined, with almost negligible posterodistal lobe. Lateral corners of last urosomite produced, partly overlapping peduncle of U3. Uropod 3; peduncle distinctly longer than rami; endopod slightly longer than, or subequal in length to, exopod in females, in males the endopod is slightly broader, and up to onethird longer than the exopod. Telson triangular, pointed terminally, length about half (or slightly more) peduncle of U3. Remarks The combination of characters given in the diagnosis, particularly the shape of antennae 1 and the urosome, readily distinguish V. armata from all its congeners. Two synonyms of this species, V. gracilis and V. gracilenta, have page priority but neither name has been in use for over 50 years whereas V. armata is a well established species in the literature. Thus, consistent with nomenclatural stability, V. armata should continue to be used for this species (ICZN, article 79c amended). Laval (1963, 1965, 1980) has described the larval biology of V. armata, and its association with salps. It has been recorded as a associate of the salps Salpa fusiformis, Thalia democratica, Ihlea punctata (Laval 1963) and Pegea confoederata var. bicaudata (Laval 1980). Distribution This is a relatively abundant species in the tropical and temperate regions of the world’s oceans.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,025 | 0,007 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».