Reassessment of Paleotachina Townsend and Electrotachina Townsend and their removal from the Tachinidae (Diptera)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The monotypic genera Paleotachina Townsend, 1921 and Electrotachina Townsend, 1938 were originally described as fossils in amber but were later discovered to be inclusions in copal. Both taxa were originally assigned to the Tachinidae (Diptera) and this placement has continued to the present day. The holotypes of the two type species, P. smithii Townsend and E. smithii Townsend, were examined and the following taxonomic and nomenclatural changes are proposed: Paleotachina is transferred to the Muscidae and placed in synonymy with Aethiopomyia Malloch, 1921, syn. n.; P. smithii Townsend, type species of Paleotachina, is synonymized with Aethiopomyia gigas (Stein, 1906), syn. n.; Electrotachina is transferred to the Sarcophagidae and placed in synonymy with Dolichotachina Villeneuve, 1913, syn. n.; E. smithii Townsend, type species of Electrotachina, is recognized as a valid species of Dolichotachina comb. n. Images of the holotypes of P. smithii and E. smithii are provided and features that have helped place these copal inclusions in their new combinations are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".