Wallengrenia otho and W. egeremet in Eastern North America (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae: Hesperiinae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".