The spiny devil katydids, <i>Panacanthus</i> Walker (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae): an evolutionary study of acoustic behaviour and morphological traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. A cladistic analysis and systematic revision of the genus Panacanthus accompanies the description of three new species, with calling songs reported for four species. The evolutionary origin of spines is considered as a defensive mechanism in Panacanthus ; both morphological and behavioural (i.e. acoustic) traits allow inferences about relationships. Phylogenetic analysis produced one most parsimonious cladogram eighty‐two steps long, with the ensemble consistency index = 0.84. Panacanthus cuspidatus and P. pallicornis (formerly Storniza Walker 1869, Martinezia Bolivar 1881) are properly incorporated in Panacanthus . On morphology, Panacanthus is more related to the Neotropical Copiphora and Lirometopum than to the Old World Lesina . Character analysis reveals that in Panacanthus the ancestral condition of calling song resonance (the production of musical sounds) has given rise to a more nonresonant (transient) stridulation. A correlation between the production of more complex sound waves and spinous protection of the body (especially the pronotum) is noted. Because early workers grouped Panacanthus with other spiny genera, based on pronotal morphology, we present a critique of the evolutionary and ecological implications of the development of defensive spines in this genus. This approach may be applied to other taxa using a similar protective mechanism. We advise against arrangement of the pronotal, cephalic and femoral armature as a homologous characteristic across subfamilies. Several pronotal processes and modifications evolved independently in other genera of Conocephalinae, Hetrodinae, Pseudophyllinae and Phaneropterinae. The pronotal structure of Panacanthus is unique and may be taken as a synapomorphic characteristic of all its species and as an autapomorphic feature of the genus.
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 | 0.000 | 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".