Re-descriptions of larvae of Hoperius and Meladema and phylogenetic implications for the tribe Colymbetini (Coleoptera Dytiscidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New descriptions of the larvae of Meladema lanio (Fabricius), M. coriacea Laporte and Hoperius planatus Fall are provided. Characters from larval morphology are analyzed to infer the phylogenetic relationships of the genera Meladema Laporte and Hoperius Fall with other genera of the tribe Colymbetini (Colymbetinae). Larvae of Meladema are unique among other Colymbetini being characterized by the presence of a variable number of additional setae along the dorsal margin of both femora and tibiae. Larvae of Hoperius reveal to be remarkably modified and autapomorphic being characterized by a short antennomere II, the presence of a variable number of secondary setae on antennomeres I - II and maxillary palpomere, an elongate maxillary palpus, and a narrow and elongate mandible. A parsimony analysis based on 30 informative larval characters is carried out. Whereas the 12 most parsimonious trees support the placement of Meladema as sister to Neoscutopterus J. Balfour-Browne, the relative position of Hoperius remains unresolved within the Colymbetini. Larvae of Meladema share with those of Neoscutopterus: (i) the presence of additional setae both on the frontoclypeus and parietale, (ii) the presence of a large number of secondary setae on trochantera, (iii) the absence of spinulae along ventral margin of mesotibia and mesotarsus and (iv) the presence of additional setae both on abdominal segment VIII.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".