Correcting a mistake: Limnophyes stagnum Namayandeh, Guerra & Ram, 2024 is not conspecific with Limnophyes sp. 14ES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this communication, we report on correcting DNA barcoding records of Limnophyes stagnum Namayandeh, Guerra & Ram, 2024. The five sequences we submitted to BOLD and published in Namayandeh et al. (2024) under L. stagnummatch the CO1 sequences of Limnophyes sp. 14ES and the two species are not conspecific. Both species were collected from the type locality of L. stagnum but at different times with a misassumption that both species represent a single taxon. We have corrected our records in BOLD, replacing the names of the five sequences with Limnophyes sp. 14ES. Additionally, we obtained and uploaded a single CO1 sequence of L. stagnum in BOLD and incorporated it into new molecular analyses reported here. Based on our results, the closest sequences to L. stagnum were those of Limnophyes natalensis (Kieffer, 1914). The minimum K2P distance of L. stagnum with L. natalensis was 10.0% (average 11.4%), large enough to support the delimitation of L. stagnum sp. nov. from L. natalensis. Further discussion on the morphological differences of the two species and those of L. stagnum and Limnophyes sp. 14ES are provided.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".