One must imagine Sisyphus happy: Integrative taxonomic characterization of 22 new Ceroptres species (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae: Ceroptresini)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe new species in the genus Ceroptres Hartig, 1840 (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae: Ceroptresini) represented by voucher material sequenced by Ward et al. (2024). We describe 22 new species, all authored by Nastasi, Smith, & Davis: C. anansii sp. nov., C. anzui sp. nov., C. bruti sp. nov., C. curupira sp. nov., C. daleki sp. nov., C. dandoi sp. nov., C. demerzelae sp. nov., C. iktomii sp. nov., C. jabbai sp. nov., C. jarethi sp. nov., C. lokii sp. nov., C. lupini sp. nov., C. mallowi sp. nov., C. promethei sp. nov., C. sandiegoae sp. nov., C. selinae sp. nov., C. soloi sp. nov., C. songae sp. nov., C. swiperi sp. nov., C. thrymi sp. nov., C. tikoloshei sp. nov., and C. zorroi sp. nov. After our taxonomic treatment, the genus Ceroptres includes 43 species, all but three of which are known from North America. Among our new species are two reared from cecidomyiid midge galls, an association previously recorded but without valid taxonomic association. We provide new records for two additional previously described species; we record C. ensiger (Walsh, 1864) from Pennsylvania and confirm characters for the male, and we record C. lanigerae Ashmead, 1885 from Texas. We also examined several putative species corresponding to either C. cornigera Melika & Buss, 2002 and/or C. frondosae Ashmead, 1896, which we regard as a species complex that requires elucidation in future studies. To enable further studies on Ceroptres, we provide an updated key to North American females. Overall, we find that species of Ceroptres are host specialists associated with a single host gall species or several galls that are phylogenetically or ecologically related. We suggest that there are many North American species of Ceroptres, possibly hundreds, still awaiting collection and characterization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".