MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886276697 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4442.1.3

A new species of Lepidotrigona (Hymenoptera: Apidae) from Thailand with the description of males of L. flavibasis and L. doipaensis and comments on asymmetrical genitalia in bees

2018· article· en· W2886276697 on OpenAlexaff
Korrawat Attasopa, Hans Bänziger, Terd Disayathanoowat, Laurence Packer

Bibliographic record

VenueZootaxa · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHymenopteraSternaApidaeZoologyMale genitaliaGenusSpecies complexPhylogenetic tree

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe Lepidotrigona satun Attasopa and Bänziger new species from southern Thailand based upon associated males and females (workers). The new species is a member of the L. ventralis species group, which is otherwise represented in Thailand only by L. flavibasis and L. doipaensis. We also describe the males of the latter two species, associated with nests from close to their type localities in northern Thailand. Lepidotrigona doipaensis Schwarz and L. flavibasis (Cockerell) had previously often been misidentified as L. ventralis (Smith), a species confirmed only from Borneo. Based upon differences in male morphology, especially of the metasomal sterna, we conclude that the male described from Vietnam by Sakagami (1975) as belonging to L. flavibasis represents an undescribed species. Our findings support previous taxonomic studies that highlight the importance of including males in the differentiation of closely related species of meliponines and their association with workers. The three species whose males we describe have asymmetric penis valves with the asymmetry differentially developed among the three. We compare this genitalic asymmetry with that known from a different apid genus, Tarsalia.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZootaxaSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207