Description of the second- and third instar larvae of Platynectes (s. str.) decemnotatus (Aubé, 1838) (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae: Agabinae: Platynectini)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The second- and third instar larvae of Platynectes (s. str.) decemnotatus (Aubé, 1838) are described and illustrated in detail for the first time, with special emphasis on morphometry and chaetotaxy. Larvae of P. decemnotatus can be distinguished from most other Agabinae by having secondary setae on the urogomphus and share with the other known species described in detail the presence of a ventroapical spinula on antennomere 3 and the absence of an occipital suture, natatory dorsal setae on tibia and tarsus and natatory setae on urogomphus. Platynectes decemnotatus larvae differ from larvae of Agabus Leach, 1817, Hydrotrupes Sharp, 1882 (currently in Hydrotrupini), Ilybiosoma Crotch, 1873, Ilybius Erichson, 1832 and the previously described Platynectes species in having a one-segmented urogomphus, a character previously observed only in larvae of Agabinus Crotch, 1873. The second- and third instar larvae of P. decemnotatus differ from those of P. (Agametrus) curtulus (Régimbart, 1899) in having the apical lateroventral process of antennomere 3 protruding (not protruding in P. curtulus). The third-instar larva of P. decemnotatus can also be distinguished from that of P. (Gueorguievtes) decempunctatus (Fabricius, 1775) by the absence of secondary dorsal setae on the tibia.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".