MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6894032044 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5691418

Hylurgops reticulatus Wood 1971

2014· article· en· W6894032044 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSetaAedeagusDorsumLobeTaperingReticulate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hylurgops reticulatus Wood, 1971 (Figures 6 b, 7h, 15h, 17h, 22a, 23) Hylurgops reticulatus Wood, 1971b:71 (Summit Lake, Shasta County, California, USA) Diagnosis. Hylurgops reticulatus is distinguished from the sympatric H. porosus at high (> 50×) magnification by the completely reticulate elytral surfaces (Fig. 22 a), also by the ventral lobe of the aedeagus (Fig. 7 h). It is distinguished from H. knausi by a greater size difference between the large and small pronotal punctures, by the long, hair-like setae on the ventral surfaces and from dark brown specimens of H. pinifex occurring in Colorado by the longer than wide pronotum (Fig. 17 h), which tapers smoothly anteriorly. Description. Size. Length 3.9–5.3 (avg. 4.5 ± 0.4) mm long, 2.8× longer than wide. Color. Mature adult black to dark brownish-red, if bicolored (rarely) it presents a black pronotum and a reddish-brown to brown elytra, ventral sclerites dark brownish-red to black with dark femur and tibiae and lighter tarsi. Frons. Middle impression moderately deep; carina elevated, extends from middle impression to epistoma, surface smooth to reticulate; vestiture hair-like setae, longer below middle, 2–7× the size of a puncture diameter. Pronotum. Elongate 1.0–1.1 (1.1 ± 0), base narrower than elytral anterior margin; smoothly tapering anteriorly (Fig. 17 h), widest near middle; median line present lengthwise, slightly raised, its surface reticulate; discal punctures of two sizes, the smaller more abundant (2:1), the larger 3× diameter of the smaller, inner surface shiny or dull, inter-puncture area reticulate, some with scattered smooth areas; discal setae sparse to absent, short, recumbent, whitish, hair-like, averaging length of small punctures at disc, 2× longer at marginal areas; basal ⅔ of lateral margin narrowly rounded, becoming broadly rounded anteriorly to a slight apical constriction. Elytra. Anterior margin almost straight; striae straight, shallowly concave, punctures round, shiny, separated by half their diameter on disc; interstriae slightly wider than striae, evenly reticulate (visible at> 50×, Fig. 22 a), punctures minute, confused, a middle row of erect, whitish hair-like setae arising from behind each granule, setae as long as a discal strial puncture width, becoming longer posteriorly, separated by 1.5× strial puncture width. Declivity. Striae slightly impressed, as wide as most interstriae except the third (Fig. 15 h), punctures round and deep, smaller than at disc, separated by half their diameter’s length, second interstriae slightly impressed, all with pointed granules separated by 1.5× a puncture diameter, with ground vestiture of small, round, scale-like setae, 3–4 rows across interstriae, uniseriate midline of erect, whitish hair-like setae as long or slightly longer than interstrial width. Ventral sclerites. Surface punctured, reticulate; vestiture distinctly long, hair-like; precoxal ridge acutely elevated. Legs. Protibiae with two large socketed teeth before apical angle; meso- and metatibiae with one or two large socketed teeth before apical angle; third tarsal segment slightly broader than second. Aedeagus. Of typical Hylurgops type, with a distinct ventral lobe in the aedeagus (Fig. 7 h). Gallery: As in H. porosus (Wood 1982): uniramous, longitudinal, with broods mining perpendicular to the brood gallery. Material examined. 110 specimens. CANADA. Alberta: Lake Louise (CNCI). British Columbia: Creston (CNCI), Enderby (CNCI), Indian Meadows, Manning Provincial Park (CNCI), Midday Creek (CNCI), Midday Valley, Merritt (CNCI), Midday Valley, Merritt Paratypes No. 12578 (CNCI), Lake Cowichan (CNCI), Oliver (CNCI), Robson (CNCI), Spious Creek (CNCI), Summerland (CNCI), Trinity Valley (CNCI), Vancouver, Mesachie Lake (CNCI), Voght Valley (CNCI). MEXICO. Durango: 10 mi. SW El Salto (CNCI). USA. Arizona: Coconino Co.: Flagstaff (DEBC). California: Lassen Co.: Black Mountain (DEBC); Lassen NF (CNCI); Los Angeles Co.: Big Pines (CNCI, DEBC); Mendocino Co.: Mendocino (DEBC); Plumas Co.: Jackson Ck. (DEBC), Meadow Valley (CNCI); San Bernandino Co.: Baldwin Lake (CNCI), Big Bear Lake (CNCI); Shasta Co.: Old Station (DEBC). Colorado: El Paso Co.: 15 mi. S. Colorado Springs (CNCI); Montezuma Co. (CSUC). New Mexico: Otero Co.: Cloudcroft (CNCI). Oregon: Josephine Co. (DEBC); Klamath Co.: 7 mi. SW Fort Klamath (CNCI); Utah: Juab Co.: Eureka (CNCI), The Mammoth (CNCI). Hosts: Picea engelmannii, P. sitchensis, Pinus arizonica var. cooperi (new host, El Salto, Durango, MX, Coll. J.B. Thomas 1964), P. attenuata, P. contorta, P. jeffreyi, P. monticola, P. muricata, P. ponderosa, P. radiata, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Tsuga heterophylla. Distribution (Fig. 23). NORTH AMERICA: From southern Alaska to Durango, Mexico. Discussion. Wood (1971b) described H. reticulatus from specimens he collected in 1946 at Summit in Shasta County, California. He mentioned that H. reticulatus was previously confused with H. porosus and Hylastes macer LeConte, the latter also having a reticulate elytral surface. The third tarsal segments of H. reticulatus are not as broad as in other Hylurgops; however, they are not narrow as in Hylastes. The pronotal punctures are of two distinct sizes that are intermixed (Fig. 17 h). The species resembles H. porosus and occurs in sympatry with it throughout most of its distribution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicAmphibian and Reptile Biology→French-language works237,207→