Lyonetia pulverulentella Zeller 1839
Bibliographic record
Abstract
12. Lyonetia pulverulentella Zeller, 1839 (Lyonetiidae) Lyonetia pulverulentella Zeller, 1839: 216. Type locality: “Böhmen” (Czech Republic). BOLD:AAH6132 Palearctic distribution. Europe and Russia to Ukraine. New North American records. Canada: British Columbia, near Hazelton, 30 Jul 2009, 5 ♂, 4 unsexed (CNC, PFRC, RBCM, SEM). Diagnosis. BC specimens are predominantly dark, the forewings with a grey ground colour and suffused with brown-tipped scales; there are two transversely oblique fuscous brown fasciae in the basal half, and in the apical portion two short, fuscous subapical bars, one subapical fuscous spot and a projecting fuscous pencil in the terminal white cilia typical of Lyonetia. In Europe pulverulentella has variable colouration, like most species of Lyonetia, with the majority being predominantly pale. North American specimens are superficially similar to saliciella. In male genitalia, the paired caudal extensions of T8 are parallel to each other with straight apices (incurved, outcurved, or attenuate in other species), the apex of the uncus is upcurved with a sharp but shallow notch (pointed or deeply notched in others), and the apex of the valva is truncate (rounded in others). In female genitalia (not illustrated), the corpus bursae is narrowly elongate, without signum. Larval host. Willows (Salix spp.) (Bengtsson & Johansson 2011). Note. The Canadian specimens of pulverulentella were initially identified by default as L. saliciella Busck, 1904, which was described from British Columbia (type locality: Kaslo). There is a possibility that saliciella is conspecific with pulverulentella. Examination of the type of saliciella Busck will be necessary to ascertain whether this could be a synonym, but this could not be done within the scope of this work. The CNC has a series under saliciella that was reared from Salix as well as from Populus. There is no taxonomic treatment of North American Lyonetia but L. prunifoliella was treated in detail by Schmitt et al. (1996). The collecting locality of the pulverulentella records is the same as for Caloptilia suberinella (see note about that species above) and the issue with a possible case of synonymy is also similar.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.008 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".