Leptotrombidium aenigmami STEKOLNIKOV 2013, sp. nov.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2. Leptotrombidium aenigmami sp. nov. (Figs. 7–8) Diagnosis. SIF = 7B-B-3-2111.0000; fPp = N/N/BNN; Pc = 3; Gn = 2; fSc: PL = AM> AL; SB-PL; fCx = 1.1.1; fSt = 2.2; fD = 2H-6-2-2; DS = 11–16; VS = 25–33; NDV = 41–44; Ip = 716–745. Standard measurements are given in Table 3. Description (larva). IDIOSOMA. Eyes 2 + 2. One pair of humeral setae; 6 (5 in one specimen) setae in 1 st row of dorsal idiosomal setae; only marginal setae usually present posterior to 1 st row: 2- 2 in 5 specimens examined and 2-2-2- 2 in 2 specimens; in one specimen 2 additional dorsal setae situated asymmetrically in central part of idiosoma, in other specimens central part of idiosoma lack of setae; dorsal idiosomal setae densely covered with 4 rows of moderate barbs (barbed tetrapectinala), fD in holotype 2H-6-2-2; 4 sternal setae and 25–33 ventral setae; total number of idiosomal setae excluding coxal and sternal ones 41–44. GNATHOSOMA. Cheliceral blade with tricuspid cap; basal part of cheliceral base moderately covered with puncta; gnathobase with sparse puncta and 1 pair of branched setae; palpal femur with few puncta; galeala branched; palpal claw with 3 prongs; setae on palpal femur and genu nude; dorsal palpal tibial seta branched; lateral and ventral palpal tibial setae nude; palpal tarsus with thick heavily branched dorsal seta, 3 apical and 3 ventral slender, weakly branched setae, and tarsala. SCUTUM. Nearly rectangular, with posterior margin almost straight in centre and rounded laterally, with sparse small puncta; AM base posterior to level of ALs; SB at level of PLs (PSB–P-PL = –1–2, mean 0.6); PL = AM> AL; all scutal setae barbed similarly to dorsal idiosomal setae; flagelliform sensilla with about 12 short branches in distal half. LEGS. All 7-segmented, with pair of claws and claw-like empodium. Leg I: coxa with 1 non-specialized branched seta (1B); trochanter 1B; basifemur 1B; telofemur 5B; genu 4B, 2 genualae, microgenuala; tibia 8B, 2 tibialae, microtibiala; tarsus 22B, tarsala (15 long), microtarsala distal of tarsala, subterminala, parasubterminala, pretarsala. Leg II: coxa 1B; trochanter 1B; basifemur 2B; telofemur 4B; genu 3B, genuala; tibia 6B, 2 tibialae; tarsus 16B, tarsala (14 long), microtarsala near and slightly proximal of tarsala, pretarsala. Leg III: coxa 1B; trochanter 1B; basifemur 2B; telofemur 3B; genu 3B, genuala; tibia 6B, tibiala; tarsus 15B. Host. Laonastes aenigmamus Jenkins, Kilpatrick, Robinson and Timmins, 2005 (Rodentia: Diatomyidae). Type material. Holotype larva (L-33, T-Tr.-57) ex Laonastes aenigmamus, LAOS: Khammouane Province, 18 km N from Thakhek, Ban Doy village, 140 m a.s.l., 12 November 2008, coll. A. V. Abramov and A.N. Tikhonov, mites collected by A. V. Bochkov. 16 paratypes larvae (Nos. L-67 to L-455), 11–16 November 2008, other data same. Holotype and paratypes are deposited in ZIN. Etymology. Species name derived from the type host epithet. Remarks. Within 3 other Leptotrombidium species having 6 setae in 1 st dorsal row, L. aenigmami is closer to L. tarsale and differs from it in fD = 2H-6-2-2 vs. 2H-6-6-6-4-2, densely barbed (vs. sparsely covered with small barbs) dorsal idiosomal setae, much shorter AM and PL (AM = 43–50 vs. 60–69 and PL = 43–49 vs. 64–69), somewhat different shape of scutum (PSB = 16–18 vs. 11–12, SD = 41–43 vs. 38–40, corners of posterior scutal margin rounded vs. sinuous), and in longer legs (Ip = 727–792 vs. 682–670).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".