MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387739523 · doi:10.35929/rsz.0109

On the species formerly assigned to Schrankia Hübner (Erebidae: Hypenodinae) in the Western Hemisphere, with the revalidation of Hypenopsis Dyar and descriptions of three new species

2023· article· en· W4387739523 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐François Landry, Bernard Landry, Paul Z. Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue suisse de zoologie · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyZoologyType speciesIncertae sedisErebidaeGenusTaxonomy (biology)Type (biology)Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genus Hypenopsis Dyar, 1913 (type species: Hypenodes macula Druce, 1891) is removed from synonymy with Schrankia Hübner, 1825 (Lepidoptera, Erebidae, Hypenodinae) and reinstated as valid. Hypenopsis and its type species H. macula (Druce, 1891) are both redescribed based on the first morphological study of the genitalia of its two syntypes, and a lectotype is designated. Three new species are described based on morphology and supported by COI sequence data: H. calusa J.-F. Landry & B. Landry, sp. nov., H. sonora J.-F. Landry & B. Landry, sp. nov., two North American species long misidentified as ‘Schrankia’ macula, and H. galapagensis B. Landry & J.-F. Landry, sp. nov. from the Galápagos Islands. DNA barcodes support the separation of Hypenopsis from Schrankia in congruence with morphology. Two other species from Panama described in Hypenopsis (H. flualis Schaus, 1916 and H. musalis Schaus, 1916), and later included in Schrankia are illustrated for the first time: the genitalia of their holotypes show that they do not share diagnostic characters of either Schrankia or Hypenopsis, and their COI barcode sequences are distinct from either genus as well as other Hypenodinae genera; they are here regarded as Hypenodinae incertae sedis.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue suisse de zoologieSame topicLepidoptera: Biology and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207