MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415512882 · doi:10.3897/zookeys.1257.158827

The brown copper moth, Tridentaforma browncopper: DNA barcoding reveals a second species in the family Tridentaformidae (Lepidoptera, Adeloidea)

2025· article· en· W4415512882 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Spencer K. Monckton, Valerie Levesque‐Beaudin, Ken Thompson, Kris French, Hunter Hampton, Paul D. N. Hebert

Bibliographic record

VenueZooKeys · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsTeck (Canada)Learning PartnershipUniversity of Guelph
FundersGovernment of CanadaMinistry of Colleges and UniversitiesOntario GenomicsGenome Canada
KeywordsDNA barcodingBiodiversitySpecies complexBarcodeTraditional knowledgeTaxonomy (biology)Genetic divergenceIndigenous

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A biodiversity monitoring program in south-central British Columbia, Canada, at sites on traditional nłeʔképmx territory near the Highland Valley Copper mine, collected many specimens of an unknown moth. DNA barcode analysis revealed its affinity but deep divergence (14.3%) from Tridentaforma fuscoleuca (Braun, 1923), the only species in the family Tridentaformidae. The new species was assigned to the BIN (Barcode Index Number) BOLD:AFK8960. Morphological study confirmed its placement in this family but revealed marked genitalic differences from T. fuscoleuca . Given its genetic and morphological divergence, we describe Tridentaforma browncopper Monckton & Levesque-Beaudin, sp. nov. The scientific name is a translation of the name, skʷúnkʷl̓itkax̣n̓I, chosen by nłeʔképmx Elders and Knowledge Keepers, which means “brown copper moth”. Its discovery and naming reflect an effective collaboration among biodiversity scientists, industry representatives, and Indigenous communities. It also demonstrates how DNA barcoding can facilitate species descriptions without requiring taxonomists with specialist expertise in the group under investigation.

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)0.001
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 score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZooKeysSame topicLepidoptera: Biology and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207