MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050183722 · doi:10.3897/zookeys.264.4442

Lepidoptera family-group names proposed by Thaddeus William Harris in 1841

2013· article· en· W2050183722 on OpenAlexaff
Donald Lafontaine, Christian Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueZooKeys · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLepidoptera genitaliaSynonym (taxonomy)NoctuidaeBELLAType (biology)GenusZoologyGenealogyTaxonomy (biology)BiologyClassicsHistoryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1841, T. W. Harris published "A Report on the Insects of Massachusetts, Injurious to Vegetation," a seminal work in North American Entomology and one of the first New World publications to describe Lepidoptera species. Although appearing in several subsequent editions, the eight family-group names proposed by Harris were largely overlooked. In summarizing Harris' family-group names, we show that authorship for two Noctuidae names in current usage require changes: Acronictinae Harris, 1841 (originally as Acronyctadae) has priority over Heinemann, 1859, and Agrotini Harris, 1841 (as Agrotitidae) has priority over Rambur, 1848. Mamestradae Harris, 1841 is also a senior synonym of Mamestrinae Hampson, 1902 (Type genus: Mamestra Ochsenheimer, 1816), an available name that is currently a junior subjective synonym of Noctuidae: Noctuinae: Hadenini Guenée, 1837 (Type genus: Hadena Schrank, 1802). Geometridae: Ennominae: Hyberniini Harris, 1841 (as Hyberniadae), based on Erranis Hübner, [1825] (= Hybernia Berthold, 1827), has precedence over two family-group names with long-standing usage, Bistonini Stephens, 1850 and Boarmiini Duponchel, 1845, and a reversal of precedence for the latter two names over Hyberniini is proposed under ICZN guidelines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZooKeysSame topicLepidoptera: Biology and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207