Redefinition and synonymy of genera in the<i>Ophiomyia</i>genus group, with the description of<i>Euhexomyza</i>new genus (Diptera: Agromyzidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Generic boundaries are reevaluated in the subfamily Agromyzinae (Diptera: Agromyzidae), specifically, amongst those taxa in theOphiomyiagenus group.OphiomyiaBraschnikov, 1897 is redefined on the basis of an anteriorly truncated clypeus, the only character consistently found in all species of this diverse group, with very few exceptions. This results in the synonymy of the species-poor generaKleinschmidtimyiaSpencer, 1986new synonym,PenetagromyzaSpencer, 1959new synonym, andHexomyzaEnderlein, 1936new synonym. Many species ofHexomyzaare recombined asOphiomyiaand one species is returned toMelanagromyzaHendel, 1920, but the remainding species form a small, mostly Holarctic clade that is here given the new genus nameEuhexomyzanew genus.MelanagromyzaandTropicomyiaSpencer, 1973 are also redefined, and while mostTropicomyiabelong to a single lineage, at least one is clearly of separate origins and the genus should be reclassified following closer examination.EpidermomyiaIpe and Ipe, 2004new synonymis included as a junior synonym ofTropicomyia. Although larval morphology and life history have sometimes been found to be predictive of phylogeny in the Agromyzinae, superficially similar feeding strategies in the broadly inclusive categories of leaf mining, stem mining/boring, and gall forming are found to occur independently multiple times throughout the subfamily and can be misleading when delimiting genus-level groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".