Acanthosoma rufispinum Tsai & Rédei 2015, new combination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acanthosoma rufispinum (Distant, 1887), new combination Figs 44–56, 160 Sastragala rufispina Distant, 1887: 352. Syntype (s): North India; BMNH! Sastragala minuta: Ahmad et al. (1979: 8, 12), Schaefer & Ahmad (1987: 24). Unavailable name. Sastragala minuta Ahmad & Moizuddin, 1990: 287, 290. Holotype: ♂, Pakistan: Punjab, Murree; NHMUK. New subjective synonym. Sastragala murreeana (non Distant, 1900): Ahmad & Moizuddin (1990: 289). Misidentification. Sastragala rufispina: Atkinson 1889: 29 (reproduction of original description, distribution), Lethierry & Severin 1893: 254 (catalogue, distribution), Distant 1902: 319 (redescription, distribution), Kirkaldy 1909: 173 (catalogue, distribution), Distant 1918: 148 (diagnostic characters, distribution, record), Ahmad & Moizuddin 1990: 287 (in key, distribution). Sastragala murreeana (misidentification): Ahmad et al. 1979: 8 (listed), 12 (record, host plant), Ahmad & Moizuddin 1985: 66 (anatomy, figures), Ahmad & Moizuddin 1986: 169 (figures, host plant, immatures), Schaefer & Ahmad 1987: 23 (host plant), Ahmad & Moizuddin 1990: 287 (in key, distribution), 289 (redescription, figures, record, host plant). Type material examined. Sastragala rufispina. Lectotype (present designation): ♀, “Type \ H. T.” [pr circle with red border], “Col. \ Buckley” [gray circle, hw], “ Distant coll. \ 1911-383” [pr], “rufispinus \ Dist.” [Distant’s hw]; pinned, both antennae, tibiae and tarsi of left fore, both mid, and right hind leg, tarsus of right fore leg, tarsal segment II of left hind leg lacking; deposited in BMNH (Figs 44–46). Additional specimens examined. PAKISTAN. Punjab: Murree, leg. F. Stoliczka, F.S. 118 (1 ♀ BMNH); same locality and collector, coll. Atkinson, B.M. 92-6 (1 ♂ BMNH); same locality and collector, coll. W.L. Distant, B.M. 1911-383 (1 ♀ BMNH); Azad Kashmir: Tararkhel [= Tarar Khel], from grass, 4.viii.1965, leg. S.M. Khan (1 ♂ BMNH).— INDIA. Himachal Pradesh: Kulu [= Kullu], 5000 ft., leg. C. Rost (1 ♀ HNHM), Dalhousie, 21.vi.1961, leg. P.W. Oman (1 ♂ USNM); Uttarakhand: Mussoorie [= Masūrī], United Prov. Forest Dept., Dehra Dun, A.W. Imms, B.M. 1915-228 (1 ♂ BMNH); Mussoorie, Inoti, United Prov. Forest Dept., Dehra Dun, 16.x.1910, A.W. Imms, B.M. 1915-228 (1 ♀ BMNH); Dehra Dun, leg. Ollenbach, Pusa coll. (1 ♂ BMNH); Almora Dist., Chaubattia, 6000–7000 ft., leg. S. R. Archer, B.M. 1920-175 (1 ♀ BMNH); Naini Tal [= Nainital], 7800 ft., 4.ii.1934, leg. J.A. Graham, B.M. 1934-147 (2 ♂♂ BMNH), Garhwal, Saklana Tehri, Uniyal Gaon, Jai K. Uniyal, 5500 ft., 22.v.1946, on leaves of Alnus nitida, coll. J.C. Lutz (11 ♂♂ 9♀♀ USNM).— NEPAL. Jiri, 1900 m, 17– 19.v.1962, leg. G. Ebert (1 ♂ NMPC), Janakpur, Malipu-Dolakha, 1000–1700 m, 9.viii.1983, unknown collector (1 ♀ SEHU), Godavari, Napal Valley, 17.vi.1968, leg. T. Kumata (1 ♀ SEHU). Diagnosis. Recognized by its distinctly anterolaterally produced and apically rather obtuse humeri (Figs 44– 45) and particularly its male genitalia (Figs 47–55). Pendergrast’s organ of ventrite VI larger than that of ventrite VII, rounded (Fig. 56). Description of male and female terminalia. Male. Genital capsule (Figs 47–51) with a pair of short, broadly rounded lateral projections almost reaching apex of membrane in rest; dorsal rim with a broad, deep, U-shaped incision; apex of lateral projection with a pigmented denticle, dorsal infolding protruding basally, with a pair of pigmented ridges; ventral rim with a broad, rounded medial incision, with a pair of pigmented denticles laterally, and a pair of somewhat elongate, pigmented protuberances subapically. Paramere as in Figs 52–55. Segment X with a dorsoapical protusion (cf. Fig. 47). Female (Fig. 56). Posterior margin of ventrite VII with a deep, parabolic median incision surrounding valvifers VIII, margined with black, with a pair of black submedian patches submarginally; laterotergites IX obliquely directed and broadly separated along meson; posterior margin of laterotergites VIII shallowly arcuate. Notes. Sastragala rufispina was described from North India based on an unspecified number of individuals (syntypes) (Distant 1887). A single female syntype was found in BMNH (Figs 29–30) and it is designated as lectotype; several additional specimens of both sexes were examined from various localities of northern India and Nepal. The species is hereby transferred to Acanthosoma based on arguments presented in the Discussion. Based on several specimens from Murree of Punjab Province, Pakistan, Ahmad & Moizuddin (1990) provided a detailed redescription of a species identified by them as Sastragala murreeana Distant, 1900. Their text and illustrations, particularly those of the genitalia of the male leave no doubt that they misidentified Acanthosoma murreeanum and their record pertains to A. rufispinum. We have examined specimens of A. rufispinum from the same locality. Based on a single male also from Murree, Ahmad & Moizuddin (1990) described a new species, Sastragala minuta. According to their diagnosis it only differs from S. murreana sensu Ahmad & Moizuddin (= Acanthosoma rufispinum) by insignificant characters; its male genitalia, particularly the very characteristic genital capsule (cf. Ahmad & Moizuddin 1990: 299, fig. 24), are identical with those of A. rufispinum. Unfortunately we could not access the holotype, but as the original description and illustrations of S. minuta convincingly indicate that this species does not differ from A. rufispinum, the synonymy of the two species seems justified. We treat the specific epithet as an adjective (New Latin rufispinus, - a, - um, meaning ‘having red spine’) and therefore we change the ending according to the gender of the genus. Distribution. Apparently a Himalayan species occurring in the mountainous regions of north Pakistan, India, and Nepal. It is reported from Nepal for the first time in the present paper.— PAKISTAN. Punjab!; Azad Kashmir!— INDIA. Himachal Pradesh!; Uttarakhand!— NEPAL!
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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".