MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Larval Morphology of Aspidytidae (Coleoptera: Adephaga) and Its Phylogenetic Implications

2005· article· en· W4235904383 on OpenAlexafffund
Yves Alarie, David T. Bilton

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the Entomological Society of America · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicColeoptera Taxonomy and Distribution
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyInstarChaetotaxyLarvaSetaZoologyPhylogenetic treeSimple eye in invertebratesAnatomyBotanyGenus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aspidytidae, or cliff water beetles, are a recently discovered family of Adephaga, which have an apparently disjunct distribution in China and South Africa. The larvae of Aspidytidae are described for the first time, based on material of Aspidytes niobe Ribera, Beutel, Balke & Vogler, 2002, collected together with adults in South Africa. External morphological features, including chaetotaxy, are reported for all three larval instars, and an assessment made of the polarity of larval characters of phylogenetic utility in Adephaga. Larvae of Aspidytidae possess a mixture of primitive and derived character states, and are unique within the Adephaga in retaining the egg-bursters to instar II, and having dorsally orientated spiracles on abdominal segment VIII in instars II and III. Larvae of Aspidytae have retained several character states which are plesiomorphic within the Dytiscoidea: e.g., the abdominal segment IX retained as a small remnant and the primary seta UR9 and the primary pores URd, URe, and URf are present on the urogomphus. A parsimony analysis based on 17 informative larval characteristics was conducted with the program PAUP*. The six most parsimonious trees confirm the Aspidytidae as a relatively basal lineage of the Dytiscoidea.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations34
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the Entomological Society of AmericaSame topicColeoptera Taxonomy and DistributionFrench-language works237,207