<i>Hypoderma sinense</i> : solving a century‐old enigma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the species of Hypoderma (Diptera: Oestridae) that have been described and named over the last three centuries, Hypoderma sinense Pleske has been the subject of several scientific discussions. Hypoderma sinense was described by T. Pleske in 1926 on the basis of only three females collected by the Russian explorer P. K. Kozlov nearly 25 years earlier during a scientific expedition to China (1900-1901). This species was examined by the foremost oestrid authorities and synonomized with H. lineatum. Recently a unique, unidentified species of Hypoderma was observed to infect cattle and yaks in China. Molecular and morphological observations confirmed the unique nature of the third-stage larvae. This data initiated a debate within the scientific community regarding the proper name of this species, in particular with reference to previous taxonomical discussion on the validity of H. sinense. The present work provides a historical overview of the Russian scientific expeditions that collected the specimens and of the explorers and the entomologists who contributed to the description of H. sinense. The morphological examination of the original type material of H. sinense and the comparison with females of H. lineatum indicated that the H. sinense lectotype, deposited at the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, was within the range of variation of H. lineatum. Comparisons of the cox1 (688 bp) sequence obtained from the leg of a paralectotype of H. sinense with those of H. bovis (Linneaus), H. lineatum (De Villers) and of a sixth valid species of Hypoderma identified as "H. sinense" available in GenBank revealed differences of 9.7%, 7.2% and 0.3%, respectively. On the basis of these results, we concluded that the nominal species H. sinense should be treated as valid.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".