Nomenclatural Notes on the Species Recorded and Described Under The Name<i>“Helops gracilis”</i>(Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nomenclatural status of three darkling beetle species previously described under the name Helops gracilis, by Fisher von Waldheim in 1823, Küster in 1850 and Bland in 1864, is clarified. The status of a fourth species, a misidentification of Helops gracilis Küster by Allard (1876, 1877) and Seidlitz (1896), is also discussed. The following new nomenclatural acts are included: Helops gracilis Fisher von Waldheim in 1823 is recognized as Odocnemis (Heloponotus) gracilis (Fisher von Waldheim, 1823) comb. nov. (from Helops); Catomus kuesteri (Weise, 1878) comb. nov. (from Helops) is the valid name for Helops gracilis Küster, 1850; Helops blancli Bousquet and Bouchard, nom. nov. is proposed for Helops gracilis Bland, 1864. Odocnemis perplexus (Ménétriés, 1848) is considered a new synonym of Odocnemis gracilis (Fisher de Waldheim, 1823) and Catomus dichrous Reitter, 1902 as a new synonym of Catomus kuesteri (Weise, 1878). Lectotypes are designated for Helops gracilis Fischer von Waldheim, 1823, H. gracilis Bland, 1864 and H. seidlitzi Gebien, 1911.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
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".