The synonymies of Dolichopus lepidus lepidus Staeger, 1842 — demasculinisations, lectotype designations and a nomen oblitum (Diptera, Dolichopodidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Type material of all synonyms of Dolichopus lepidus lepidus Staeger, 1842 was examined, except for D. dissimilipes Zetterstedt, 1843 where no type material was available. Lectotype specimens are designated for D. lapponicus Becker, 1917 and D. uliginosulus Dyte, 1980. The previously proposed, but not directly verified synonymy of D. lapponicus with D. lepidus is here confirmed. Two junior synonyms—D. lapponicus and D. cruralis—were provoked by nematode infections that lead to demasculinisation of the males, which mislead former authors in their descriptions. Demasculinised specimens of the junior synonyms are depicted. To stabilize nomenclature, we propose Dolichopus lepidus as nomen protectum, and the senior synonym but forgotten name D. tibialis Zetterstedt, 1838 as nomen oblitum. We provide insights into the historical background of the Zetterstedt name, based on remarks by Loew on Zetterstedt’s descriptions. Additionally, nematodes were found for the first time in specimens of Dolichopus lepidus lepidus Staeger, 1842 from the Alps, and in specimens of Dolichopus urbanus Meigen, 1824, and D. subpennatus d’Assis Fonseca, 1976 from lowlands (Belgium). Nematode-infected specimens of Dolichopus spp. were previously reported exclusively from Scandinavia, and a boreomontane distribution was then suggested.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".