MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7118574079 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18157312

Illidops oroseira Hocherl & Fernandez-Triana 2025, sp. nov.

2025· article· W7118574079 sur OpenAlexaff
Amelie Höcherl, M. O. Kaliuzhna, Michael J. Raupach, José Fernández-Triana

Notice bibliographique

RevueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typearticle
Langue
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Établissements canadiensCNIB Foundation
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEtymologyHolotypeMalaiseFace (sociological concept)Reticulate

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Illidops oroseira Höcherl & Fernandez-Triana sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 939111F6-3BAA-4E01-A71F-933FE8C716F1 Figs 2H–I, 35–36 Diagnosis This species resembles I. suffectus in the coarsely rugose to reticulate propodeum with a median carina. However, it differs in its overall coloration: entirely black to dark brown (compared to mostly yellow in suffectus), and T1 shape: subrectangular to slightly barrel-shaped T1 (compared to widening in suffectus). Etymology This species was collected from elevations above 1800 m in the Alps. The coarse propodeum sculpture including the median carina reminds the authors of an aerial view of a mountain range. Considering this, the species epithet is derived from Greek and translates to “mountain range”. Type material Holotype GERMANY – Bavaria • ♀; Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Zugspitze, Platt; 47.407° N, 11.008° E; 2005 m a.s.l.; 18 Jul.–2 Aug. 2018; D. Doczkal and J. Voith leg.; Malaise trap; bulk ID: dv.zugsp5.3; SNSB-ZSM, ZSM-HYM-42389-G02. Paratypes GERMANY – Bavaria • 1 ♀; same data as for holotype; 2–13 Aug. 2018; bulk ID: dv.zugsp5.4; SNSB-ZSM, ZSM-HYM-42390-A02 • 1 ♀; same data as for holotype; 47.405° N, 11.009° E; 1980 m a.s.l.; 18 Jul.–2 Aug. 2018; bulk ID: dv.zugsp7.3; SNSB-ZSM, ZSM-HYM-42390-G06 • 1 ♀; Oberstdorf, Koblat; 47.423° N, 10.357° E; 2005 m a.s.l.; 4–25 Jul. 2014; D. Doczkal, S. Schmidt and J. Voith leg.; Malaise trap; bulk ID: ds.kobl3.3; SNSB-ZSM, ZSM-HYM-42470-C08. Description Female MEASUREMENTS. Body length: 2.90 (2.90–3.35) mm. Fore wing length: 2.95 (2.55–2.95) mm. Antenna shorter than body. HEAD. Face: eyes very slightly converging below, inner margin of eyes almost straight. Minimum face width/maximum face width: 0.95 (0.92–0.95). Malar distance/mandible width: 1.43 (1.06–1.67). Face softly punctate. Ocelli in high triangle, posterior tangent to anterior ocellus not touching posterior pair. OOL/POD: 2.44 (2.00–2.55). POL/POD: 2.05 (1.90–2.22). F2 length/width: 2.54 (2.37–2.54). F15 length/width: 1.33 (1.17–1.3). F2 length/F15 length: 2.36 (2.21–2.36). MESOSOMA. Anteromesoscutum mostly with shallow punctures. Mesoscutellar disc punctate. Posterior smooth band of mesoscutellum in some specimens, including holotype, appearing somewhat interrupted centrally by punctures of scutellar disc, giving impression of a very slightly sculptured area interrupting posterior smooth band of scutellum centrally. Propodeum sculpture coarse, with strongly elevated longitudinal median carina (which has some small rugosities or small carinae radiating perpendicularly). METASOMA. T1 shape: slightly barrel-shaped with sinuous posterior margin. T1 sculpture: mostly sculptured. T1 width (anterior, maximum, posterior): 0.27, 0.41, 0.37 (0.20–0.27, 0.37–0.41, 0.24–0.39) mm. T1 central length: 0.38 (0.35–0.40) mm. T1 length/width at posterior margin: 1.03 (0.97–1.08). T2 shape: more or less rectangular, posterior margin slightly sinuate, lateral margins concave. Mediotergite 2 sculpture: mostly coarsely sculptured. T2 width at posterior margin/length: 3.06 (2.90–3.24). Posterior margin of T3–T7 slightly desclerotized, but mediotergites not appearing to be pushed forward. Hypopygium not enlarged, its posterior end about in line with end of apical tergites. Ventral margin of hypopygium with desclerotized area showing few pleats. Ovipositor sheaths broad and setose over most of their length. Ovipositor sheaths length/metatibial length: 0.55 (0.53–0.57). Metafemur length/width: 0.27 (0.25–0.32). Tarsal claws: simple. WINGS. Length of fore wing veins r/2 RS: 1.19 (1.06–1.20). Pterostigma length/width: 2.79 (2.58–2.79). Point of insertion of vein r in pterostigma: clearly beyond half length of pterostigma. Angle of vein r with fore wing anterior margin: clearly outwards, inclined towards fore wing apex. Length of vein R1/ length of pterostigma: 0.94 (0.94–1.00). Length of vein R1/distance of distal end of R1 to distal end of vein 3 RS: 1.25 (1.25–1.5). COLORATION. Body color: mostly dark brown to black, except for tibiae and tarsi. Head color: head including face, clypeus and labrum completely dark brown to black, palpi pale except for slightly darker base. Antenna completely dark brown to black. All coxae and femora dark brown to black, pro- and mesofemora with slightly paler apical tip. All tibiae orange-brownish. Tegula and humeral complex dark brown. Fore wing: pterostigma brown, wing veins in basal third dark brown, becoming slightly lighter towards apex. Male Unknown. Ecology / host information Host unknown. Distribution PAL: Germany. Molecular data 4 Sequences in BOLD, BIN BOLD:AEO8226. Remarks We place this species in Illidops because it fits our current concept of the genus and due to its similarity to another species in the genus, I. suffectus. Both I. oroseira sp. nov. and I. suffectus have characters that fit within the current concept of Illidops: the posterior smooth band of the scutellum is interrupted centrally by a sculptured area (although it varies slightly between specimens in I. oroseira and the sculpture is very weak, similar to I. suevus, and limited to a small area on the anterior margin of the mesoscutellar bar); the fore wing vein R1 is shorter than the pterostigma; the propodeum is strongly sculptured, with the sculpture reticulate. Illidops oroseira does not have some of the other characters typical of Illidops (but neither do some other species within the genus): the eyes are only very slightly convergent towards the lower inner margin (not at all in I. suffectus); T3–T7 are only slightly medially desclerotized and do not appear pushed forwards (similar in I. suffectus). Both I. suffectus and I. oroseira have a similar propodeum sculpture which is quite unique in Illidops (coarsely reticulate rugose, with strongly elevated longitudinal median carina which has some small rugosities or small carinae radiating perpendicularly). The Nearest Neighbor (NN) of BIN BOLD:AEO8226 has a minimum p-distance of 6.56% (BOLD:ACP4312). The NN-BIN includes a single specimen from Bulgaria, BIOUG15445-A06, which is linked to a private sequence, but upon examination of a lateral habitus image could represent a species of Illidops (short R1). We also performed a BLAST search in the BOLD database and found that the closest public match is BIOUG85322-C11 (BOLD:AET9368) which was collected in California, USA, and has 92.99% COI sequence similarity. Apart from the Bulgarian and Californian specimens, which are the closest matches, the sequences mostly match specimens mostly identified morphologically by us as Illidops. But there are some similarly close matches which represent different genera: for one, there is a 92.69% similarity in the COI sequence with a specimen identified as Dolichogenidea murinanae (CNCHYM 00190). Upon examination of a lateral photo, the specimen does not seem to be a misidentified representative of Illidops. The same is true for Parapanteles hyposidrae, which has several specimens at 92.08% COI sequence similarity, but is clearly not a member of Illidops (at least upon photo observation and identification by a Microgastrinae expert). Another record of Pholetesor sp. with 91.95% COI similarity also seemingly does not represent a misidentified specimen of Illidops. Since all of these molecular analyses are only based on sequences of the COI gene, microgastrine genera in general are in urgent need of revision, and no reliable phylogeny is available at the moment, we cannot draw any conclusions from this. More details are discussed below in the section on DNA barcoding. Summarizing this, it is difficult to clearly state whether this species is part of Illidops or not. Morphologically, it seems very similar to I. suffectus and most of the molecular data also places it in Illidops rather than any other genus. For now, we place this species within Illidops, but this status may need to be revised in the future.

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 enseignants0,021
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,052

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0030,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0010,003
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0160,009

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 Opus0,046
Tête enseignante GPT0,262
Écart entre enseignants0,216 · 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
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Même sujetSpecies Distribution and Climate Change→Travaux en français237 207→