MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408265146 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.5601.3.1

Larval morphology of Platambus Thomson, 1859: evidence of contrasting morphotypes and phylogenetic considerations (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae, Agabinae)

2025· article· en· W4408265146 on OpenAlexaff
Yves Alarie, Mariano C. Michat, R. Antonio Gómez, Konrad Dettner

Bibliographic record

VenueZootaxa · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicColeoptera Taxonomy and Distribution
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityUniversity of Sudbury
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDytiscidaeBiologyMonophylyInstarCladisticsLarvaZoologyNearctic ecozoneMorphology (biology)Phylogenetic treeTaxonomy (biology)EcologyClade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All larval instars of Platambus apache Young, 1981 and P. maculatus (Linnaeus, 1758), and the third instar larva of P. semivittatus (LeConte, 1852) are described, illustrated in detail and compared to larvae of other known Platambus Thomson, 1859 species. The descriptions use the now generalized larval descriptive format of aquatic Adephaga, which includes chaetotaxic characters. Based on larval characters, a cladistic analysis is conducted using the program TNT to test the monophyly of Platambus and its relationship with five other agabine genera (Agabus Leach, 1817, Agabinus Crotch, 1873, Hydrotrupes Sharp, 1882, Ilybiosoma Crotch, 1873, Platynectes Régimbart, 1879). The monophyly of Platambus as currently defined is not corroborated in our analysis, as the relationships with some species of Agabus are inconclusive. There is a basal split between Palearctic and Nearctic species of Platambus, whereas all five Palaearctic species studied are recovered as monophyletic with very strong support, the Nearctic P. semivittatus and P. apache are deemed to potentially represent distinct evolutionary lineages as reflected by their contrasting larval morphology.

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 score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZootaxaSame topicColeoptera Taxonomy and DistributionFrench-language works237,207