Morphometric studies of the genus<i>Sitobion</i>Mordvilko 1914 in Australia (Hemiptera: Aphididae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The taxonomic status of several Australian populations within the aphid genusSitobionhas been uncertain for many years. Morphometric investigations using principal component analysis and canonical discriminant analysis have allowed us to clarify the relationships of these entities. A form on grasses, referred to in the literature asSitobionnearfragariae, is shown not to separate morphometrically fromS. fragariae(Walker) collected in Europe and North America. In contrast,Sitobion miscanthi(Takahashi) Clones 61 (2n = 20) and 34 (2n = 17) separate unequivocally from each other and from Clone 4 (2n = 18), the supposed ancestral karyotype. We argue against describing these as separate species. Sexual forms ofS. miscanthiand AustralianS. fragariaereared in the laboratory were compared with the sexual forms of EuropeanSitobion avenae(Fabricius) andS.fragariae, respectively. Australian specimens fromSmilax glyciphyllaandSmilax australis(Smilacaceae) are notSitobion smilacifoliae(Takahashi).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".