Larval morphology and analysis of primary chaetotaxy in the genus Suphis Aubé, 1836 (Coleoptera: Noteridae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The three larval instars of Suphis cimicoides Aubé, 1837 are described and illustrated, including morphometric and chaetotaxic analyses of the cephalic capsule, head appendages, legs, last abdominal segment and urogomphus. A preliminary ground plan of primary chaetotaxy for noterid larvae is presented for the first time, based on the species described herein and examination of larvae of the genera Hydrocanthus Say, 1823 and Suphisellus Crotch, 1873. This ground plan is compared with previous systems proposed for other adephagan families. Larvae of Noteridae can be distinguished from those of other families of Hydradephaga by the following combination of characters: (1) antennomere 3 with a rugged area on distal portion; (2) abdominal segment VIII with a U-shaped wavy membranous area ventrally; (3) absence of pore FRd; and (4) presence of seta AB16. Several sensilla present in noterid larvae (notably setae TR2 and TA1 and pores PAl, PAm, COd, TRb and FEb) are absent in larvae of Meruidae. On the contrary, parietal seta PA5 is present in Meruidae but absent in Noteridae. The presence of pore COc in Noteridae may indicate that this family has retained the ancestral condition found only in Carabidae. On the other hand, the absence of setae FE7, FE8, FE9 and FE10 in Noteridae is similar to the condition found in Carabidae, Gyrinidae and Meruidae.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".