Reconsidering the taxonomy of the<i>Pithecia irrorata</i>species group (Primates: Pitheciidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of Pithecia species has considerably increased in recent years. In the first comprehensive taxonomic revision for the genus, five species were recognized, among these, Pithecia irrorata, with two subspecies: P. irrorata irrorata and P. irrorata vanzolinii. These subspecies were elevated to full species in the most recent taxonomic revision of the genus, which was based primarily on pelage color. Additionally, it was proposed that P. irrorata was a group of undescribed species, and three additional species were described from P. irrorata: P. mittermeieri, P. rylandsi, and P. pissinattii. However, diagnoses and geographic distributions are not well defined for the species proposed, bringing confusion to subsequent studies. To address the current hypothesis on the species diversity in the P. irrorata species group, we conducted comparative analyses using the same source of evidence: pelage color variation. Material analyzed includes specimens throughout the distribution of the group in Peru, Bolivia, and Brazil. Based on our results, we recognize two groups that are morphologically diagnosable and correspond to geographically isolated populations. The senior names available for these groups are P. irrorata and P. vanzolinii. We recognize P. mittermeieri, P. rylandsi, and P. pissinattii as junior synonyms of P. irrorata. We also discuss some taxonomic inaccuracies regarding the type localities and type material for the senior and junior names, provide synonymy lists based on extensive literature review, and provide distribution maps for the valid species we recognized. O número de espécies de Pithecia aumentou consideravelmente nos últimos anos. Na primeira revisão taxonômica mais abrangente para o gênero, cinco espécies foram reconhecidas, entre elas Pithecia irrorata, com duas subespécies: P. irrorata irrorata e P. irrorata vanzolinii. Estas subespécies foram elevadas à categoria de espécies plenas na revisão taxonômica mais recente do gênero, que foi baseada primariamente na coloração da pelagem. Adicionalmente, foi proposto que Pithecia irrorata seria um complexo de espécies não descritas, e três espécies adicionais foram descritas a partir de P. irrorata: P. mittermeieri, P. rylandsi, and P. pissinattii. Entretanto, as diagnoses e distribuições geográficas não foram bem definidas para as espécies propostas, trazendo confusão para estudos subsequentes. Para abordar a hipótese atual sobre a diversidade no grupo de espécies Pithecia irrorata, realizamos análises comparativas utilizando a mesma fonte de evidência – variação de coloração da pelagem. O material analisado inclui espécimes em toda a distribuição do grupo no Peru, Bolívia e Brasil. Com base em nossos resultados, reconhecemos dois grupos que são morfologicamente diagnosticáveis e correspondem a populações geograficamente isoladas. Os nomes mais antigos disponíveis para estes grupos são Pithecia irrorata e P. vanzolinii. Reconhecemos P. mittermeieri, P. rylandsi e P. pissinattii como sinônimo-juniores de Pithecia irrorata. Discutimos também algumas imprecisões em relação às localidades-tipo e o material-tipo para os nomes seniores e juniores; fornecemos listas sinonímicas baseadas em extensa revisão da literatura; e fornecemos mapas de distribuição para as espécies válidas que reconhecemos.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".