Cordylochele longicollis Sars 1888
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cordylochele longicollis Sars, 1888. Figure 4 D–F Cordylochele longicollis Sars, 1888.— Sars, 1891: 49 –51. Pl 4. fig. a–g.— Meinert, 1899: 50 — Schimkewitsch, 1930: 298.— Stephensen, 1933a: 25 –26.— Stephensen, 1936b: 39 –40.— Stephensen 1933c: 35 fig. 10: 6–9— Hedgpeth, 1948; 207. Pseudopallene longicollis (Stock, 1953b). Material examined. USNM 10953. 1 Female. Canada; off Newfoundland, 42° 48' 00"N, 050° 55' 30"W. depth 825 fms. Albatross stn 2428. Det. J. W. Hedgpeth. Remarks. This specimen is accompanied by five labels one of which is typewritten, the others handwritten. One early label identifies the specimen as Palene (sic) malleolata?; two labels belong to another accession lot which was identified as Cordylochele malleolata by A. E. Verrill, (NSNM 10954 with the same station data but from a depth of 471 fms) and two others are identifications by Hedgpeth, one as Cordylochele malleolata and the other (most recent) as Pseudopallene malleolata. Unfortunately this reexamination of the USNM registered specimen has added confusion to the status of this specimen. This specimen was one of more than seventeen from four stations and cited by Hedgpeth (1948) as Pseudopallene malleolata. In the same paper he also cited three specimens of C. longicollis. His illustration of C. malleolata (Hedgpeth, 1948 fig 20a) with widely-spaced legs is somewhat intermediate between Sars’ illustrations of C. malleolata and C. longicollis (Sars, pl. 4, figs.1 and 2). Sars (1891) described the lateral processes of C. malleolata as being separated by distinct though narrow intervals, the oviger claw as comparatively short (“a good deal shorter than oviger segment 10”), the legs on their outer part as densely hairy, the propodus as powerfully developed and somewhat curved and the propodal claw as much shorter than the propodus. All of these characters are inconsistent with the USNM specimen which is most like C. longicollis. In this specimen the lateral processes are widely separated, the oviger claw is long (> greater than 80% of segment 10) and the legs lack conspicuous setae. The propodus is slender, elongate and almost straight (Fig. 4 F). The length of the terminal claw is about 70% of the propodus length and the ocular tubercle is of expected height for the family (described as very low in C. malleolata) and has two dorsal papillae. All of these latter characters are consistent with C. longicollis and significantly agree with Sars figures 1V 2a–g. The neck of the cephalon is also much longer than that illustrated by Sars for C. malleolata (fig 1V, 1). I have therefore assigned this specimen to C. longicollis. Based on this specimen the description of C. longicollis warrants additional comments. The oviger spine formula is 19:23:24:25, the inner margin of the claw is lined with about 33 long needle-like teeth and the distal onequarter to one-third of the claw is smooth, curved and pick-like (Fig.4 F). Sars also described the oviger claw of C. longicollis as slender and elongate which is consistent with this specimen. The only potential inconsistency between this specimen and Sars’ description C. longicollis is the presence of fine teeth on the oviger claw which he did not mention. He did however describe the oviger claw C. malleolata as finely dentate on the inner edge. If it is found that they are not present in C. longicollis then further revision may be necessary. To further confuse the issue, Hedgpeth (1948, fig. 20b) illustrated C. longicollis with a much longer neck and a differently-shaped ocular tubercle to that described by Sars. As to whether his material represents a distinct species will only be resolved by reexamination of his specimens. Distribution. North Atlantic, Boreal-Arctic.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.007 |
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".