The morphology, higher-level phylogeny and classification of the Empidoidea (Diptera)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cladistic analysis of the Empidoidea and basal lineages of the Cyclorrhapha, based on morphological characters, confirms the monophyly of both groups as well as that of the Eremoneura. The resulting final trees are used to revise the classification of the Empidoidea to include the following five families: Empididae, Hybotidae, Atelestidae (including Nemedininae n. subfam.), Brachystomatidae rev. stat. (comprising the subfamilies Brachystomatinae, Ceratomerinae and Trichopezinae), and Dolichopodidae s.lat. The family Microphoridae is not recognized, and the Microphorinae and Parathalassiinae are assigned to the Dolichopodidae s.lat. The Dolichopodidae s.str. includes 15 subfamilies that were previously recognized within the family. Within the Empidoidea we found support for Atelestidae as the sister group to the Hybotidae and for the monophyly of Parathalassiinae + Dolichopodidae s.str. The Empididae remains poorly defined and the genera Homalocnemis Philippi, Iteaphila Zetterstedt, Anthepiscopus Becker, and Oreogeton Schiner are classified as incertae sedis within the Empidoidea. In addition, the following higher taxa are proposed: Symballophthalmini n. tribe, Bicellariini n. tribe, Oedaleinae rev. stat., and Trichininae rev. stat., which are all assigned to the Hybotidae. The genus Sematopoda Collin is tentatively assigned to Trichopezinae, and Xanthodromia Saigusa is transferred from Hemerodromiinae to Brachystomatinae. All morphological characters are extensively discussed and illustrated, including details of the antennae, mouthparts, internal thoracic structures, wings, and male and female terminalia. In addition, a key to families and unplaced genus groups of the Empidoidea is provided. Feeding habits are also discussed in terms of the empidoid ground plan condition.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".