Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spilogona padlei Huckett, 1965 Figs 5 H–J Spilogona padlei Huckett, 1965: 228. Type-locality: “Padlei, Northwest Territories, 7.25.50 [i.e. 25.vii.1950], R. E. Duckworth ” [CANADA, NWT] [seen]. Spilogona perambulata Huckett, 1965: 228. Type-locality: “Richardson Highway mi. 236, Alaska, 6.26.51 [i.e. 26.vi.1951], J.R. McGillis ” [USA, Alaska] [seen]. Syn. nov. Spilogona padlei Huckett, 1965; Sorokina & Thidrikh, 2021: 225 (Chukotka AO). Notes. Huckett described Spilogona padlei and Spilogona perambulata in the same monograph (Huckett, 1965). Huckett indicated in the description (1965: 228): “The species padlei and perambulata have much in common. The former however may be distinguished from the latter and related forms by the presence of a fine ventral bristle on mid tibia.” The type material of Spilogona padlei and Spilogona perambulata (in Canadian National Collection) has been examined. The descriptions of both species and the male terminalia are the same. Both species have sternite 1 with fine hairs, anepisternum without interspatial seta, scutellum with 2 long downwardly-directed preapical setulae on upper border of declivities, and male mid femur with 1–2 stout pv setae at base. However, Huckett noted in the description of Spilogona padlei “… mid femur with 2 or 3 fine pv,..”, and “… mid femur with a few weak pv …” for Spilogona perambulata. The mid femur of Spilogona padlei really does have a row of weak short pv setae in addition to stout pv seta. Huckett probably did not notice the stout setae because the mid legs are tucked close to the thorax. The mid tibia of Spilogona padlei is actually unlike that of Spilogona perambulata by possessing very short v setae. Since only 6 specimens (5 males and 1 female) of Spilogona padlei have been described from one locality (NWT, Padlei), it can be assumed that the short v setae are a variation of this character in one generation and not enough to describe a separate species. The male terminalia of Spilogona padlei and Spilogona perambulata from different generations is the same (Fig. 5H). The sternite 5 is especially distinctive because the two small tubercles at middle are visible in dry specimens (Fig. 5I). The females of both species are also identical; the ovipositor is especially distinctive, with large coarse hook-shaped spinules on the postgenital plate (Fig. 5J). I therefore conclude that Spilogona perambulata Huckett, 1965 and Spilogona padlei Huckett, 1965 are both new synonyms, and as they were both published in the same work and on the same page I select as first reviser Spilogona padlei as the valid name for this species. Additional material examined. RUSSIA, Taymyr Peninsula: 1♂, Verkhnyaya Taimyra River, mouth of Logata River, willow forest in floodplain, 30.vii.1967, leg. K. Gorodkov (ZISP). Wrangel Island: 1♂ 7♀, lower reaches of Somnitel′naya River, 70º56’N 179º37’W, yellow pan trap, 7–10.vii.2019, leg. P. Kulemeev & O. Khruleva. Magadan area: 2♀, 120 km NNE Seimchan, Lyadinoi stream, 63°44’N 153°25’E, yellow pan trap, 10.vii.2019, leg. N. Tridrikh; 2♀, ~ 100 km NNE Seimchan, Nature Reserve “Magadansky”, 63°39’N 153°17’E, valley of Suksukan River, thickets of young willow, white pan trap, 13.vii.2019, leg. N. Tridrikh; 2♀, the same data, but yellow pan trap, 21–24.vii.2019; 1♀, the same data, but pebble beach, pan trap, 24.vii.2019; 1♀, 10 km N Evensk, Tainyi stream, 61°55’N 159°16’E, 25.vii.2020 leg. N. Tridrikh; 1♀, 10 km W Evensk, Malaya Garmanda River, 61°52’N 159°23’E, sweeping in grass, 01.vii.2020, leg. N. Tridrikh (SZMN except where stated otherwise). Distribution. PALAEARCTIC: Russia (Arctic Siberia, NE of Far East). NEARCTIC: NWT, Alaska, Yukon, Quebec.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.006 |
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".