Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) rhenanus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) rhenanus (Oudemans) Seiulus rhenanus Oudemans 1905: 78. Typhlodromus (Neoseiulus) rhenanus, Nesbitt 1951: 38-39. Typhlodromus rhenanus, Cunliffe and Baker 1953: 9. Typhlodromus (Typhlodromus) rhenanus, Chant 1959: 62-63. Typhlodromella rhenana, Muma 1961: 299. Anthoseius rhenanus, Wainstein and Kolodochka 1974: 28 Anthoseius (Amblydromellus) rhenanus, Kolodochka 1978: 63-64. Typhlodromus (Amblydromella) rhenanus, Gupta 1985: 396. Amblydromella rhenana, Moraes et al. 1986: 172. Typhlodromella rhenana, Evans and Momen 1988: 209-216. Amblydromella (Aphanoseia) rhenana, Denmark and Welbourn 2002: 308. Typhlodromus (Anthoseius) rhenanus, Moraes et al. 2004: 345; Chant and McMurtry 2007: 155. Anthoseius tortor Beglyarov and Malov, 1978: 7 (synonymy according to Evans and Edland 1998). For same reasons than the previous species, this species belongs to the rhenanus species group. Almost nothing is known about the biology of that species. This species was already recorded from Slovenia (Miklavc 2006; Bohinc and Trdan 2013). World distribution: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Madeira Island, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, USA. Specimens examined: 2 ♀♀ in total. Rakitnica, Dolenja vas (aasl 490 m, lat. 45°41’12”N, long. 14°45’20”E), 2 ♀♀ on Corylus avellana L. (Betulaceae), 18/VI/2019. Remarks: The description and measurements of the adult females collected agree with those provided by Ferragut et al. (2010) for specimens from Spain.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".