Case 3746 — Ripiphoridae Laporte, 1840 and Ripiphorus Bosc, 1791 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage by designating Ripiphorus subdipterus Fabricius, 1792 as the type species of Ripiphorus and proposed ruling that Laporte (1840) used the type genus Ripiphorus in the sense defined b
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this application, under Articles 65.2.2 and 81.1 of the Code, is to conserve the current usage of the generic name RipiphorusBosc, 1791 and the familygroup name RipiphoridaeLaporte, 1840. The current usage of Ripiphorus is threatened by the discovery that its first valid type-species designation is Mordella paradoxa Linnaeus, 1760 which would result in Ripiphorus being the valid name for the species currently included in MetoecusDejean, 1834 and MyoditesLatreille, 1819 being the valid name for the species currently placed in Ripiphorus. In addition, the current usage of Ripiphoridae would be threatened because of the altered concept of its type genus. In order to avoid nomenclatural instability we propose that Ripiphorus subdipterus Fabricius, 1792 be designated as the type species of Ripiphorus and that the Commission rule that Laporte (1840) used Ripiphorus in the currently-accepted sense.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".