Drawing the Excalibur bug from the stone: adding credibility to the double-edged sword hypothesis of coreid evolution (Hemiptera, Coreidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new genus and species of exaggerated antennae Coreidae is described from Myanmar amber of the Late Cretaceous (Cenomanian stage). Ferriantenna excaliburgen. et sp. nov. appears related to another Cretaceous coreid with exaggerated antennae, Magnusantenna Du & Chen, 2021, but can be differentiated by the fourth antennal segment which is short and paddle-like, the undulating shape of the pronotum and mesonotum, and the shorter and thicker legs. The new coreid, with elaborately formed antennae and simple hind legs instead of the typical extant coreid morphology with simple antennae and elaborately formed hind legs, begs the question: why were the elaborate features of the antennae lost in favor of ornate hind legs? Features that are large and showy are at higher risk of being attacked by predators or stuck in a poor molt and subjected to autotomy and are therefore lost at a higher rate than simple appendages. We hypothesize that because elaborate antennae play an additional significant sensory role compared to elaborate hind legs, that evolutionarily it is more costly to have elaborate antennae versus elaborate hind legs. Thus, through the millenia, as coreid evolution experimented with elaborate/ornate features, those on the antennae were likely selected against in favor of ornate hind legs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".