Flies and flowers: taxonomic diversity of anthophiles and pollinators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Diptera are the second most important order among flower-visiting (anthophilous) and flower-pollinating insects worldwide. Their taxonomic diversity ranges from Nematocera to Brachycera, including most families within the suborders. Especially important are Syrphidae, Bombyliidae, and Muscoidea. Other families, especially of small flies, are less appreciated and often overlooked for their associations with flowers. We have compiled records of their flower visitations to show that they may be more prevalent than usually thought. Our knowledge of anthophilous Diptera needs to be enhanced by future research concerning ( i ) the significance of nocturnal Nematocera and acalypterate muscoids as pollinators, ( ii ) the extent to which the relatively ineffective pollen-carrying ability of some taxa can be compensated by the abundance of individuals, and ( iii ) the role of Diptera as pollinators of the first flowering plants (Angiospermae) by using phylogenetic and palaeontological evidence. Specializations in floral relationships involve the morphology of Diptera, especially of their mouthparts, nutritional requirements, and behaviour, as well as concomitant floral attributes. The South African flora has the most highly specialized relations with dipterous pollinators, but in arctic and alpine generalist fly–flower relations are important in pollination and fly nutrition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".