Freezing susceptibility and freezing tolerance in Palaearctic Cetoniidae (Coleoptera)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insects have evolved various adaptations that allow them to survive adverse seasons. In terms of cold-hardiness, they may classically be divided into freezing-susceptible versus freezing-tolerant species. But this concept of two alternative cold-hardiness strategies is now amendable, and to better understand these adaptive mechanisms, it is of interest to study freezing resistance in taxonomically related insect species, i.e., belonging to the same family or to a group of closely related organisms sharing similar resources. Freezing susceptibility and freezing tolerance have previously been recorded in the larvae of species in the same guild of the family Cetoniidae, which mainly colonise wood mould in hollow trees. We compared freezing hardiness in five species of Cetoniidae, three species in the subfamily Trichiinae, Gnorimus nobilis (Linné), Trichius fasciatus (Linné), and Osmoderma eremita (Scopoli), and two species in the subfamily Cetoniinae, Cetonia aurata (Linné) and Cetonischema aeruginosa (Drury). Our results mainly show that two contrasting mechanisms are used during winter by third-instar larvae: those of the Trichiinae (apart from O. eremita) are probably characterized by year-round freezing susceptibility, and those of O. eremita and the Cetoniinae are probably distinguished by seasonal freezing susceptibility (summer) and seasonal freezing tolerance (winter). We question the current taxonomic position of the genus Osmoderma. Morphological, ecological, and behavioural arguments may be put forward to support the transfer of O. eremita from the Trichiinae to the Cetoniinae, and we stress that ecophysiological arguments, often neglected in this kind of taxonomic revision, must also be taken into account.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".