Phylogenetic relationships of Acronictinae with discussion of the abdominal courtship brush in Noctuidae (Lepidoptera)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".