MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407995439 · doi:10.5852/ejt.2025.977.2799

West Palaearctic species of Euura Newman, 1837 (Hymenoptera, Tenthredinidae)

2025· article· en· W4407995439 on OpenAlexaff
Marko Prous, Andrew Liston, Spencer K. Monckton, Katja Kramp, Hege Vårdal, Veli Vikberg, Erik Heibo, Marko Mutanen

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Taxonomy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTenthredinidaeHymenopteraWestern PalaearcticBiologyEcologyZoologyTaxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Excluding 102 species of the previously revised West Palaearctic species groups of Euura Newman, 1837 (gall-making groups, 84 species; amentorum group, 8 species; bergmanni group, 8 species; and oligospila group, 2 species), we treat here the remaining 164 West Palaearctic species of the genus. 145 new synonymies are proposed (one in Platycampus, one in Nematus, two in Pristiphora, and the rest in Euura: see Table 4 for details). 153 lectotypes are designated (see Table 4). Four nominal species are reinstated (valid name in square brackets): Pteronidea fuscarima Benson, 1933 [E. fuscarima (Benson, 1933) comb. nov.], P. fuscodorsata Lindqvist, 1949 [Euura fuscodorsata (Lindqvist, 1949) comb. nov.], Pachynematus perkioemaekii Lindqvist, 1960 [E. perkioemaekii (Lindqvist, 1960) comb. nov.], and Pontania poppii Konow, 1904 [Euura poppii (Konow, 1904) comb. nov.]. Euura tiliae (Zinovjev, 1998) comb. nov. and E. wuyishanica (Wei, 2003) comb. nov. are transferred from Nematus. Euura memoriakaszabi (Haris, 2002) comb. nov. is transferred from Pristiphora. Five new species are described: Euura halo Prous, Liston & Mutanen sp. nov., E. histriato Prous, Liston & Mutanen sp. nov., E. minivittata Prous & Mutanen sp. nov., E. polepso Prous & Mutanen sp. nov., and E. serela Prous & Mutanen sp. nov. Euura telos Liston & Prous nom. nov. (an East Palaearctic species) is proposed for Amauronematus terminalis Malaise, 1931, a secondary homonym of Pontania terminalis Marlatt, 1896 [Euura terminalis (Marlatt, 1896)]. Three treated putative species based on single males (E. bergmanni and E. clitellata group) and a female (E. bipartita group) remain unidentified pending further research. An identification key is provided to separate the genus Euura from the other similar genera. Host plants are now known for 80% (132) of the treated species (88% for all West Palaearctic Euura). Genetic data (at least mitochondrial COI and nuclear NaK and POL2) are reported for 91% (151) of the treated species. The genetic data were obtained with Sanger and Nanopore sequencing. In numerous cases, identification of one sex of a species remains difficult using morphological characters but is clear when using genetic data. In a few cases, however, identification based on morphology is reliable, while support from available genetic data is weak. Often, large morphological and genetic variability makes species delimitation ambiguous. Within-species genetic diversity, as estimated from diploid females (i.e., within-individual genetic diversity, which is an underestimate of within-species diversity), is large in Euura, on average with 0.3% divergence between the haplotypes (max 1.4%), while between-species divergence for a given species group is often only slightly higher (on average varies between 0.5–2.1%). Strong mito-nuclear discordance is observed within most species groups, but in some cases even between species groups. Over 50% of the species cannot be reliably identified based on mitochondrial COI barcodes. While nuclear DNA is significantly more congruent with morphology, identification of about 15% of the species can be ambiguous due to large genetic variability. Remarkably, two or more apparently functional COI variants are frequently observed within the same individual, with variants diverging by up to 9.6% in Euura lappo (for the 658 bp barcoding region).

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.136 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of TaxonomySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207