MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2283553997

Wallengrenia otho and W. egeremet in Eastern North America (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae: Hesperiinae)

2014· other· en· W2283553997 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSmithsonian Digital Repository (Smithsonian Institution) · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLepidoptera genitaliaGeographyForestryEcologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although Wallengrenia otho (Smith) and W. egeremet (Scudder) were described as different species (in 1797 and 1863), once egeremet was listed as a variety of otho (in 1877), it tended to stay that way. By mid-twentieth century (what with a little evolution in terminology and concepts), egeremet was generally called a subspecies of otho, which meant (by definition) that the two must be allopatric. Because geographic overlap was apparent, American workers variously (1) invoked a considerable blend zone between the subspecies, (2) pronounced subspecies egeremet a form of otho in their area of sympatry, or (3) suffered sympatric subspecies. The English skipperman Evans (in 1955) deferred to American subspecific usage but noted that egeremet might better be viewed as a species. This view, which is correct, gradually prevailed.Supporting evidence accumulated over the past two decades from about 2500 specimens is here marshalled and critically analyzed. The genitalia of W. otho and W. egeremet differ strongly, in males, in the distal ends of the aedeagus and valvae and, in females, in the ductus bursae. Superficially, otho is more warmly colored but harder looking and more sharply patterned, whereas egeremet is colder but softer and somewhat blurred. Common in the Gulf States (including the Florida Keys), otho ranges westward to about 99° and northward to (rarely) the Baltimore-Washington area and the vicinity of Chicago; more common to the north, egeremet ranges from the Gulf States (excluding southern Florida) to southern Canada and westward to about 96°-97°. Though otho is everywhere multivoltine, egeremet is univoltine over much of its range; but both species are bivoltine and essentially synchronic in their main area of sympatry. Winglength reliably reflects adult size; after allowing for sexual dimorphism (females average larger than males) and geographic variation, it is clear that egeremet is a significantly larger species than otho in eastern North America. Due to prolonged and widespread confusion of otho and egeremet, detailed lists of specimens examined are provided.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.198 · 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