External exoskeletal cavities in Coleoptera and their possible mycangial functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper reviews the occurrence of external exoskeletal cavities in beetles and provides critical reassessment of their possible mycangial function. In most reported cases, the decision to attribute mycangial function to exoskeletal cavities was based solely on the combination of two factors: (i) observation of these cavities on beetle's body; and (ii) knowledge that this particular beetle species uses fungi as a food source. Such reasoning resulted in the assumption, occasionally premature and not supported by other evidence, that exoskeletal pits in the following families may function as mycangia: Rhysodidae, Ptiliidae, Staphylinidae, Hybosoridae, Scarabaeidae, Derodontidae, Ptinidae, Jacobsoniidae, Boganiidae, Cryptophagidae, Endomychidae, Erotylidae, Latridiidae, Nitidulidae, Phloeostichidae, Silvanidae, Sphindidae, Pyrochroidae, Anthribidae, Attelabidae and Curculionidae. We conclude that only two beetle families include species with adequately documented cases of external exoskeletal mycangia: (i) Curculionidae (some Scolytinae and Platypodinae); and (ii) the structurally complex mycangia of Attelabidae (Euopsfemales). One or more species of Sphindidae, Erotylidae, Silvanidae, and Latridiidae have likely functional mycangia. Exoskeletal pits with uncertain function are additionally reported from the following families: Cupedidae, Ommatidae, Lepiceridae, Carabidae, Histeridae, Hydraenidae, Leiodidae, Elmidae, Artematopodidae, Throscidae, Elateridae, Rhinorhipidae, Biphyllidae, Cerylonidae, Cyclaxyridae, Monotomidae, Mycetophagidae and Zopheridae. We also discuss the transport of fungal spores and conidia by waxy exudates or debris build up on beetle exoskeleton, as well as their passive attachment to the body.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".