Taxonomy of the New World bee genus Agapostemon Guérin-Méneville – new names and synonymies (Hymenoptera: Halictidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".