Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Genus Lutzomyia França Phlebotomus, subg. Lutzomyia França, 1924: 10 (nom. nov. for Lutzia França, 1920). Type species, Phlebotomus longipalpis Lutz & Neiva, 1912 (orig. des.). Lutzia França, 1920: 234 (not Theobald, 1903). Preoccupied name. Fransaia Dyar & Núñez-Tovar, 1927: 155 (nom. nov. for Lutzia França, 1920, not Theobald, 1903). Lutziomyia Cordero, Vogelsang & Cossio, 1928: 649 (nom. nov. for Lutzia França, 1920, not Theobald, 1903). Lutziola Strand, 1932: 195 (nom. nov. for Lutzia França, 1920; not Theobald, 1903). Comm.: Due to its recognized medical importance, this is the New World psychodid genus that has been most studied. Its distribution extends from Canada to Argentina (Young & Duncan 1994), although the greatest diversity of species is concentrated in the Neotropics, particularly in Brazil and Colombia. Although these species have been the object of numerous revisions (Barretto 1955b, 1962, Theodor 1965, Forattini 1973, Abonnenc & Leger 1976, Lewis et al. 1977, Martins et al. 1978, Young 1979, Artemiev 1991, Young & Duncan 1994, Galati 1995, CIPA group 1999), its taxonomy remains as controversial as ever. Two taxonomic proposals are currently extant, one of which suggests that Lutzomyia is a single genus comprised of 26 subgenera and species groups (Young & Duncan 1994) and the other dividing the taxon into 19 genera (Galati 1995, 2003a). The present catalogue adopts the former approach, without giving any consideration to the putative subgenera of Lutzomyia. However, there is clearly a need for detailed molecular studies that involve representatives of all the subgenera or genera described to allow its evolutionary history to be unravelled (Bejarano 2002). Young & Duncan (1994), CIPA group (1999) and Galati (2003a, b) all carried out detailed revisions of the taxonomy and geographic distribution of this group of insects. Of the almost 500 species described from the Neotropics, 153 have been recorded from Colombia, besides six that have not been formally described, i.e., Lu. sp. no. 1 from Araracuara Morales & Minter, 1981, Lu. sp. no. 2 from Araracuara Morales & Minter, 1981, Lu. sp. from Pichindé Young, 1979, Lu. sp. from Tres Esquinas Young, 1979, Lu. sp. from Anchicayá Young, 1979 and Lu. sp. from Baduel (Floch & Abonnenc, 1945a). The two undescribed species from Araracuara, known from both males and females, have only been collected from the Department of Caquetá, whereas Lu. sp. of Pichindé, for which both sexes are also known, has been recorded from Norte de Santander (Gálvis-Ovallos et al. 2013), Risaralda, Santander (Sandoval et al. 2006) and Valle del Cauca. The undescribed species Lu. sp. of Tres Esquinas, known only from female specimens, has been reported from Caquetá, Guaviare (Cabrera et al. 2009), Meta (Cabrera et al. 2009) and Putumayo. Two of the six undescribed species have also been collected outside Colombia: Lu. sp. of Anchicayá, known only from the male, which has been recorded from Ecuador (Young & Duncan 1994) as well as Valle del Cauca, Colombia; and Lu. sp. from Baduel, considered by some authors to be conspecific to Lu. sericea (Floch & Abonnenc, 1944a) (Leon et al. 2009), reported from Brazil, French Guiana and Suriname as well as the Colombian departments of Guaviare (Cabrera et al. 2009) and Vichada. Note: Bibliographic citations are only given for those geographic records not included by the CIPA group (1999) or Bejarano (2006a), as well as for unavailable names. Similarly, only literature published since the latter article is cited, dealing with changes in the taxonomic status of the species.
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 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,036 | 0,008 |
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 ».