Revision of the Psilota Meigen, 1822 flower flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) of Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 34 species of Australian Psilota are revised, with 26 new species described (Psilota aislinnae Young sp. nov., Psilota alexanderi Young sp. nov., Psilota apiformis Thompson and Young sp. nov., Psilota auripila Young and van Steenis sp. nov., Psilota azurea Thompson and Young sp. nov., Psilota bicolor Young and Ferguson sp. nov., Psilota brunnipennis Young sp. nov., Psilota calva Young sp. nov., Psilota darwini Young sp. nov., Psilota flavoorta Young and van Steenis sp. nov., Psilota fuscifrons Young sp. nov., Psilota livida Young and van Steenis sp. nov., Psilota longipila Thompson and Young sp. nov., Psilota mcqueeni Young sp. nov., Psilota metallica Thompson and Young sp. nov., Psilota nigripila Young sp. nov., Psilota occidua Young sp. nov., Psilota pollinosa Young and van Steenis sp. nov., Psilota purpurea Thompson and Young sp. nov., Psilota smaragdina Young sp. nov., Psilota solata Young and van Steenis sp. nov., Psilota spathistyla Young and van Steenis sp. nov., Psilota spinifemur Young sp. nov., Psilota viridescens Young and van Steenis sp. nov., Psilota xanthostoma Young sp. nov., Psilota zophos Young sp. nov.) and one new record for Australia (Psilota basalis Walker, 1858). Previously described Australian species are redescribed, with the males of Psilota auricauda Curran, 1925 and P. basalis (Walker, 1858) described for the first time. Six previously described species (Psilota erythrogaster Curran, 1926, Psilota hirta Klocker, 1924, Psilota queenslandica Klocker, 1924, Psilota rubra Klocker, 1924, Psilota rubriventris Bigot, 1885, and Psilota shannoni Goot, 1964) are morphologically indistinguishable from related species. P. erythrogaster, P. rubra, and P. rubriventris are therefore treated under the Psilota cuprea (Macquart, 1850) species complex while P. hirta, P. queenslandica, and P. shannoni treated under the Psilota tristis Klocker, 1924 species complex. Lectotypes for the following species are designated: Coiloprosopa nitida Macquart, 1850, Merodon muscaeformis Walker, 1852, Orthonevra basalis Walker, 1858, Psilota coerulea Macquart, 1846, and Psilota viridis Macquart, 1847.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".