Phylogenetic relationships, larval morphology, and chaetotaxy of the subfamily Coptotominae (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Larval morphology of the monogeneric subfamily Coptotominae (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) is described and illustrated in detail, with particular emphasis on morphometry and chaetotaxy. Larvae of Coptotomus Say are unique within Dytiscidae in the presence of tracheal gills on the abdominal segments I–VI, a short bifid horn or nasale in instar I, long spinulae on the urogomphus in instar I, and rows of natatory setae on both the internal and external margins of the urogomphus in instars II and III. A cladistic analysis based on 125 larval characters sampled among representatives of other dytiscid subfamilies supports a sister-group relationship between Coptotominae and Laccophilinae based on the shared absence of setae LA10 and LA12 on the second labial palpomere and of pore ABc on the abdominal segment VIII. The clade Coptotominae + Laccophilinae resolved as sister to Lancetinae, all three subfamilies sharing the presence of an unusually low number of lamellae clypeales in the first instar (a condition called four-peg-pattern), postulated to have evolved secondarily within Dytiscidae.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".