A review of genus-group names in Diptera (Insecta) that J.C. Fabricius <br />“borrowed” from other dipterists and proposed as new in his systematic works from 1775 to 1805
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is shown that a total of eight pre-existing genus-group names in Diptera were "borrowed" and deliberately given new identities in the systematic works of J.C. Fabricius: Bibio Fabricius, 1775, Ceria Fabricius, 1794, Hirtea Fabricius, 1798, Mulio Fabricius, 1798, Scatophaga Fabricius, 1805, Sicus Fabricius, 1798, Thereva Fabricius, 1798 and Voluccella Fabricius, 1794. These names are reviewed from the standpoint that they are nomenclaturally available as intentional homonymous proposals of names for new genus-group taxa. New type-species designations are made for Bibio Fabricius, Mulio Fabricius, and Scatophaga Fabricius. Bibio Fabricius, 1775 is recognized as a senior synonym of Thereva Latreille, 1797, syn. n., but is invalid as it is a junior homonym of Bibio Geoffroy, 1762. Scatophaga Fabricius, 1805 is recognized as a junior synonym of Psila Meigen, 1803, syn. n. The nominal species Musca suilla Fabricius, 1794 has been misinterpreted as a species of Scathophaga Meigen, 1803 by subsequent authors. Scathophaga spurca Meigen, 1826 is revived as the valid name for Scathophaga suilla auct. nec (Fabricius, 1794), stat. rev. A lectotype is designated for Musca suilla Fabricius and it is shown to belong to the scathophagid Norellisoma spinimanum (Fallén, 1819), syn. n. In order to maintain stability of nomenclature and prevailing usage, reversal of precedence is invoked to declare Cordylura spinimana Fallén, 1819 as a nomen protectum and Musca suilla Fabricius, 1794 as a nomen oblitum.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".