MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2200027261 · doi:10.1111/syen.12162

Phylogenetic relationships of Acronictinae with discussion of the abdominal courtship brush in Noctuidae (Lepidoptera)

2015· article· en· W2200027261 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Entomology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Food Inspection Agency
FundersKoneen SäätiöAcademy of FinlandU.S. Forest ServiceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologySubfamilyZoologyCladeGenusLepidoptera genitaliaTaxonNoctuidaePhylogenetic treeBotanyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present results of an eight‐gene molecular study of the subfamily Acronictinae and related Noctuidae. Amphipyrinae are recovered as sister to Acronictinae, but with weak support – not surprisingly, the content of the two subfamilies has often been mixed in classifications. Balsinae, previously placed near Acronictinae or within Noctuinae, is recovered within an unresolved polytomy of Cuculliinae, Eustrotiinae, Raphiinae and Dilobinae. Gerbathodes Warren, Moma Hübner and Nacna Fletcher are excluded from Acronictinae. Three genera recently transferred into the subfamily – Cerma Hübner, Chloronycta Schmidt & Anweiler and Comachara Franclemont – are confirmed as acronictines. Lophonycta Sugi (the type genus of Lophonyctinae) is returned to the Acronictinae. Sinocharis Püngeler, formerly considered to be Acontiinae or as the basis of its own subfamily Sinocharinae, is nested within early diverging Acronictinae genera. Both subfamilies are formally synonymized: i.e. Lophonyctinae syn.n. and Sinocharinae syn.n. Nine acronictine genus‐level taxa were found to nest within the nominate genus Acronicta Ochsenheimer: Eogena Guenée, Hyboma Hübner, Hylonycta Sugi, Jocheaera Hübner, Oxicesta Hübner, Simyra Ochsenheimer, Subacronicta Kozhanchikov, Triaena Hübner, and Viminia Chapman. Eogena, Oxicesta, and Simyra, currently treated as valid genera, nest within terminal clades of the genus Acronicta and are here subsumed within the genus: Eogena syn.n. , Oxicesta syn.n. and Simyra syn.n. Four well‐supported species groups within Acronicta are identified: the alni clade, the leporina clade, the nervosa clade and the psi clade. While many previous treatments have stated explicitly that Acronictinae lack abdominal scent brushes, or excluded genera with brushes from the subfamily, we show that well‐developed brushes are present in three early diverging acronictine genera: Cerma , Lophonycta, and Sinocharis . We illustrate and describe the brushes of all three genera, and briefly review the taxonomic distribution of the anterior abdominal courtship brushes in Noctuidae, emphasizing the labile evolutionary distribution of these structures.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it