MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165467321 · doi:10.5852/ejt.2021.751.1375

Taxonomy of the New World bee genus Agapostemon Guérin-Méneville – new names and synonymies (Hymenoptera: Halictidae)

2021· article· en· W3165467321 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Cory S. Sheffield, Lars Vilhelmsen, Frederique Bakker

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Taxonomy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Saskatchewan Museum
FundersAcademy of Natural Sciences of Drexel UniversityYork University
KeywordsTaxonomy (biology)HalictidaeHomonym (biology)ZoologyBiologyType speciesGenusType (biology)TaxonHymenopteraEcologyGeographyApoidea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many early taxonomic works on North American bees were published by Europeans using specimens collected in the New World, some with type locations so imprecise that uncertainty on the nomenclatural status remains to this day. Two examples come from Fabricius (1745–1808) who described Andrena virescens Fabricius, 1775 and Apis viridula Fabricius, 1793 from “America” and “Boreal America”, respectively. The former species of Agapostemon Guérin-Méneville, 1844 occurs across most of the United States and southern Canada, the latter presumed an endemic to Cuba. The type materials of these two taxa have never been compared to each other, though a morphology-based phylogenetic analysis placed both in distinct species groups. Here we synonymize Apis viridula under Ag. virescens, thereby making Ag. femoralis (Guérin-Méneville, 1844) available as the name for the Cuban species. A lectotype for Ag. femoralis (the type species for the genus Agapostemon) is hereby designated to stabilize this taxonomy. We also synonymize Ag. obscuratus Cresson, 1869 under Ag. femoralis, suggesting that it represents a dark colour polymorphism. As Ag. cubensis Roberts, 1972 is a junior secondary homonym of Ag. cubensis (Spinola, 1851), we offer Ag. robertsi as a replacement name for the former.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.133 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of TaxonomySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207