Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aphis pyri Hartig, 1841 Aphis pyri Hartig, 1841: 369. SYNTYPES: 6 (field no. missing [7.19], 1 lost). Dysaphis pyri (Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841) (senior primary homonym— Hottes, 1930a: 182; Eastop, 1974: 164; Melville, 1981: 239). Sappaphis mali (Ferrari, 1872) (junior synonym—Börner, 1952: 98). Dysaphis (Pomaphis) plantaginea (Passerini, 1860) (junior synonym— Doncaster, 1973: 61). Valid Specimens. Six pointed on a single pin. All present (five) are alates. Remarks. Hottes (1930a) identified the priority of Aphis pyri Kittel, 1827 over Aphis pyri Hartig, Aphis pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe, 1841 and Aphis pyri Koch, 1854, but maintained Hartig’s name because the species to which it applied could not be verified on account of the lack of type specimens. Eastop (1974) petitioned the ICZN to have both A. pyri Kittel and the name Aphis pyri Vallot, 1802 supressed in favor of Boyer de Fonscolombe’s name, and the decision to conserve the latter was published by Melville (1981). In regard to the conflict of the latter with Hartig’s name, as with other conflicts between Hartig and Boyer de Fonscolombe’s names mentioned earlier, A. pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe has priority over A. pyri Hartig. Since both species are presently treated as congeneric, the next oldest available synonym for A. pyri Hartig is Myzus plantagineus [= Dysaphis plantaginea] Passerini, 1860. Upon determination of Hartig’s holotype, if the synonymy with the latter species is not supported, a replacement name may be necessary to remove it from homonymy with A. pyri Boyer de Fonscolombe since no other synonyms are available. Favret (2023) lists the name Lachnus pyri (Hartig, 1841) from Rudow (1875) in the nomenclatural history for Aphis pyri Hartig. However, Rudow (1875) made reference to this name in association with the wrong host species, Prunus padus. We believe Rudow’s (1875) use of the name Lachnus pyri was in error and that the intended species was actually Lachnus padi (Hartig, 1841) (see below).
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".