The weevils (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea) of the Maritime Provinces of Canada, II: New records from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and regional zoogeography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Seventy-nine species of weevils are newly reported in Nova Scotia and 66 species are newly reported on Prince Edward Island, increasing the known provincial weevil faunas to 244 and 92 species, respectively. Thirty-six species are recorded for the first time in the Maritime Provinces; of these,Ceutorhynchus pallidactylus(Marsham),Listronotus dietziO'Brien,Corthylus columbianusHopkins, andOrchidophilus aterrimus(Waterhouse) are recorded for the first time in Canada.Orchidophilus aterrimushas been collected only in exotic domesticated orchids and is not established in the wild. Fourteen species previously recorded on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, are reported from the provincial mainland. Four species —Curculio sulcatulus(Casey),Ceutorhynchus squamatusLeConte,Tachyerges niger(Horn), andIps calligraphus(Germar) — are removed from the faunal list of Nova Scotia, and three species —Temnocerus cyanellus(LeConte),Curculio nasicus(Say), andCryphalus ruficollis ruficollisHopkins — are removed from the faunal list of Prince Edward Island. The combined known weevil fauna of the Maritime Provinces now totals 290 species. The adequacy of collection effort is discussed and in Nova Scotia, where collection effort has been greatest, distribution patterns of selected groups of species are examined. Island faunas are discussed with respect to those of Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton Island. Regional biogeographic patterns of species are also discussed, including possible disjunct populations in Nova Scotia and species that may not have crossed the isthmus of Chignecto to colonize Nova Scotia. Attention is drawn to the long history of introduced species in the region and to ongoing introductions through an examination of the earliest records for the 60 introduced species found in the region.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".