MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414964769 · doi:10.3897/jhr.98.163217

On the nomenclature of Bombus flavifrons Smith, 1866 (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombini)

2025· article· en· W4414964769 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cory S. Sheffield, Jennifer Heron, Paul H. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hymenoptera Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of ForestsGovernment of British ColumbiaRoyal Saskatchewan Museum
FundersNational University of Singapore
KeywordsHomonym (biology)TaxonNomenclatureDisjunctSynonym (taxonomy)Type (biology)Correct nameMainlandInternational Code of Zoological Nomenclature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The name Bombus flavifrons has been applied to two different bumble bee species in North America, one described by Ezra Cresson in 1863, the other by Frederick Smith in 1866. Bombus flavifrons Cresson, 1863 is currently considered the valid name for a common and widespread species in western North America, while B. flavifrons Smith, 1866 is considered a junior homonym of B. flavifrons Cresson, and thus not available. Consequently, B. columbicus Dalla Torre, 1890 was offered as a replacement name for B. flavifrons Smith. Smith’s taxon was described from a now-lost type specimen taken on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada but has been considered a junior synonym of B. vosnesenskii Radoszkowski, 1862 since 1888. Prior to 2012 no other records of B. vosnesenskii were known from Vancouver Island, and it was considered very rare in Canada up until the early 2000s, known only from a few specimens from the southcentral mainland of British Columbia adjacent to the United States border. Bombus caliginosus (Frison, 1927) was not recorded in the literature from Canada until 2014 and is known only from five specimens collected in the 1970s at Victoria, Vancouver Island. Bombus caliginosus is distinguishable from B. vosnesenskii with some difficulty. Due to the morphological similarity of B. vosnesenskii and B. caliginosus , and their historical scarcity and disjunct distributions in Canada, we propose that B. flavifrons Smith is conspecific with B. caliginosus , a species that was not described until almost 40 years after the synonymy of B. flavifrons Smith under B. vosnesenskii . As the type specimen of Smith’s taxon is seemingly lost, we also designate a neotype of B. flavifrons Smith from Vancouver Island to support the proposed nomenclature. Though Bombus columbicus is here considered a senior synonym of B. caliginosus syn. nov. , under Article 23.9.1 of the ICZN Code, we designate the name nomen oblitum to maintain the prevailing use of B. caliginosus for this taxon.

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)0.002
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 score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hymenoptera ResearchSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207