Atheta auct .) picipennis (Mannerheim 1843
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atheta (Dimetrota auct.) picipennis (Mannerheim, 1843) (Figs. 3, 32 in Lohse & Smetana 1985; Figs. 63–66 in Klimaszewski & Winchester 2002) Homalota picipennis Mannerheim, 1843: 224. Atheta (s. str.) carlottae Casey, 1910a: 32. Atheta (s. str.) aperta Casey, 1910a: 33, syn. nov. Atheta (s. str.) wrangelica Casey, 1911a: 91, syn. nov. Atheta (s. str.) morbosa Casey, 1911a: 107, syn. nov. Atheta (s. str.) intacta Casey, 1911a: 110, syn. nov. Atheta (s. str.) alaskana Casey, 1911a: 113, syn. nov. Atheta (Dimetrota) picipennis: Fenyes, 1920: 204 (ex parte; as synonym of At. rugulosa (Heer, 1839)). Atheta (s. str.) carlottae: Fenyes, 1920: 214 (as valid species). Atheta (s. str.) aperta: Fenyes, 1920: 214 (as valid species). Atheta (s. str.) wrangelica: Fenyes, 1920: 214 (as valid species). Atheta (s. str.) morbosa: Fenyes, 1920: 215 (as valid species). Atheta (s. str.) intacta: Fenyes, 1920: 215 (as valid species). Atheta (s. str.) alaskana: Fenyes, 1920: 215 (as valid species). Atheta (Dimetrota) picipennis: Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926: 664 (ex parte; as valid species). Atheta (s. str.) carlottae: Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926: 639 (as valid species). Atheta (s. str.) aperta: Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926: 638 (as valid species). Atheta (s. str.) wrangelica: Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926: 652 (as valid species). Atheta (s. str.) morbosa: Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926: 645 (as valid species). Atheta (s. str.) intacta: Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926: 644 (as valid species). Atheta (s. str.) alaskana: Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz, 1926: 638 (as valid species). Atheta (Dimetrota) picipennis: Moore & Legner, 1975: 370 (ex parte; as valid species). Atheta (s. str.) carlottae: Moore & Legner, 1975: 356 (as valid species). Atheta (s. str.) aperta: Moore & Legner, 1975: 354 (as valid species; misspelled as apera). Atheta (s. str.) wrangelica: Moore & Legner, 1975: 377 (as valid species). Atheta (s. str.) morbosa: Moore & Legner, 1975: 366 (as valid species). Atheta (s. str.) intacta: Moore & Legner, 1975: 364 (as valid species). Atheta (s. str.) alaskana: Moore & Legner, 1975: 354 (as valid species). Dimetrota picipennis: Seevers, 1978: 260 (as valid species). Xenota carlottae: Seevers, 1978: 270 (as valid species). Xenota aperta: Seevers, 1978: 269 (as valid species). Xenota wrangelica: Seevers, 1978: 271 (as valid species). Xenota morbosa: Seevers, 1978: 270 (as valid species). Xenota intacta: Seevers, 1978: 270 (as valid species). Xenota alaskana: Seevers, 1978: 269 (as valid species). Dimetrota picipennis: Lohse & Smetana, 1985: 283 (as valid species). Dimetrota carlottae: Lohse & Smetana, 1985: 283 (as synonym of Dim. picipennis). Atheta (Dimetrota) picipennis: Klimaszewski & Winchester, 2002: 26 (as valid species). Type material. Lectotype of Homalota picipennis (designated by Lohse and Smetana (1985)): UNITED STATES: Alaska: ♂, Sitka (MZHF). Lectotype of Atheta carlottae (here designated): ♂, “QCI [Queen Charlotte Islands]”, “ Atheta carlottae Csy. ”, “TYPE USNM 39247” (red label), “CASEY bequest 1925” (NMNH). Paralectotypes: 2♂♂, 2♀♀, “QCI [Queen Charlotte Islands]”, “ carlottae PARATYPE USNM 39247” (red label), “CASEY bequest 1925” (NMNH). Lectotype of Atheta aperta (here designated): ♂, “Cal.[ifornia, Humboldt Co., Arcata]”, “ Atheta aperta Csy. ”, “TYPE USNM 39250” (red label), “CASEY bequest 1925” (NMNH). Paralectotype: ♀, “Cal.[ifornia, Humboldt Co., Arcata]”, “ aperta 2 PARATYPE USNM 39250” (red label), “CASEY bequest 1925” (NMNH). Holotype of Atheta wrangelica: ♀, “ Ft. Wrangel [Wrangell], Alaska. Wickham”, “ ♀ ”, “ wrangelica Csy. ”, “TYPE USNM 39248” (red label), “CASEY bequest 1925” (NMNH). Lectotype of Atheta morbosa (here designated): ♀, “Cal.[ifornia, Saucelito near San Francisco]”, “ Atheta morbosa Csy. ”, “TYPE USNM 39293” (red label), “CASEY bequest 1925” (NMNH). Holotype of Atheta intacta: ♀, “Cal.[ifornia, Marin Co., Saucelito]”, “ intacta Csy. ”, “TYPE USNM 39299” (red label), “CASEY bequest 1925” (NMNH). Lectotype of Atheta alaskana (here designated): ♀, “Alask.[Alaska, “without further indication, but probably collected on the mainland near Fort Wrangel” (Casey 1910a)] Wick.[ham]”, “ alaskana Csy. ”, “TYPE USNM 39281” (red label), “CASEY bequest 1925” (NMNH). Additional material: CANADA: British Columbia: ♂, Upper Carmanah Valley, 31.vii–11.viii.1991 (N.Winchester); ♀, ditto but 28.viii–9.ix.1991 (SPSU); UNITED STATES: California: San Francisco Co.: ♀ (NMNH (Casey collection)). Diagnosis. See Lohse & Smetana (1985); Klimaszewski & Winchester (2002). Discussion. The name Atheta picipennis (Mannerheim, 1843) (ex Homalota) is a secondary junior homonym of the name Atheta picipennis (Stephens, 1832) (ex Aleochara) which is itself a primary junior homonym of the name Aleochara picipennis Gyllenhal, 1827. Atheta picipennis (Stephens, 1832) has been considered a synonym of Atheta amicula (Stephens, 1832) since at least 1868 (Gemminger & Harold 1868) and to the best of my knowledge has not been cited as valid after 1899 (Article 23.9.1.1). In the last 50 years at least 31 works by at least 42 authors have been published (Hatch 1957; Gensicke 1960; Hansen et. al. 1960; Strand & Vik 1964; Koch 1968; Scheerpeltz 1968; Easton 1970; Palm 1970; Blackwelder 1973; Bordoni 1973; Tikhomirova 1973; Benick & Lohse 1974; Moore & Legner 1975; Yosii & Sawada 1976; Hanski & Koskela 1977; Pope 1977; Hanski & Koskela 1978; Muona 1979b; Burakowski et al. 1981; Uhlig & Vogel 1981; Benick 1982; Sawada 1982; Muona 1984; Lohse 1985; Segers 1986; Kahlen 1987; Muona 1987; Silfverberg 1988; Alexandrovitch et al. 1996; Derunkov & Melke 2001; Klimaszewski & Winchester 2002) listing Atheta picipennis as valid (Article 23.9.1.2). Atheta picipennis (Mannerheim, 1843) is a nomen protectum and Atheta picipennis (Stephens, 1832) is a nomen oblitum (Article 23.9.2). Atheta picipennis was believed to have a Holarctic distribution (e.g., Bernhauer & Scheerpeltz 1926) until Lohse and Smetana (1985) demonstrated that the Palaearctic specimens belonged to a separate species, At. aeneipennis (Thomson, 1856). Females of At. picipennis and At. altaica Bernhauer, 1901 have very similar spermathecae. Klimaszewski and Winchester (2002) were unable to find any difference between females of the two species. Although in average At. picipennis has a larger body than At. altaica, females of these two species can be reliably identified only by association with males. In comparison to At. altaica, males of At. picipennis have a narrower apex of the median lobe of the aedeagus. Distribution. Atheta picipennis and At. altaica appear to be allopatric: Atheta picipennis is known from southeast Alaska (Sitka, Wrangell), coastal British Columbia and California, while At. altaica is known (in North America) from the Kenai Peninsula (Alaska), central Alaska, Yukon Territory, Northwest Territories and Labrador (Lohse et al. 1990).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.023 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".