MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411137710 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.5646.3.3

Taxonomic revision and natural history of Metaphotina Piza, 1964 (Mantodea, Acontistidae)

2025· article· en· W4411137710 on OpenAlexaff
Bernardo R. Ferraz, Drielly Queiroga, PEDRO G. B. SOUZA-DIAS, Julio Rivera

Bibliographic record

VenueZootaxa · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFossil Insects in Amber
Canadian institutionsEspace pour la vie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyNatural historyZoologyEcologyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genus Metaphotina Piza, 1964 is revised based on comparative morphology. Three species are recognized: Metaphotina bimaculata (Saussure, 1870), Metaphotina austri Ferraz, Souza-Dias & Rivera, 2023, and a newly described species from Bahia, Brazil, Metaphotina akaraje sp. nov. Three new synonyms of M. bimaculata are established after a detailed analysis of primary type specimens and their taxonomic and nomenclatural history: Acontista brevipennis Saussure, 1872 syn. nov., Acontista rehni Giglio-Tos, 1927 syn. nov., and Metaphotina piracicabensis Piza, 1964 syn. nov. The analysis of distributional records confirm that Metaphotina is associated with semiarid environments across the eastern South American Dry Diagonal, mainly encompassing the Cerrado, Caatinga, and Chaco biomes. Field observations enabled the identification of the egg cases, discovering the ability of females to produce parthenogenetic offspring, and the recognition and formal description of the myrmecomorphic protonymph of M. bimaculata. Notably, we report on nymphs of M. bimaculata feeding on extrafloral nectaries (EFNs), marking the first known instance of praying mantises interacting with these plant structures. A dichotomous key, extensive graphic documentation of intra- and interspecific variation, and distribution maps are provided to facilitate the identification of Metaphotina spp..

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designNot applicable
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 topicFossil Insects in AmberFrench-language works237,207