Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tetracis cachexiata Guenée (Figs. 16–18, 88, 103, 119, 134) Tetracis cachexiata Guenée, A., [1858] in Boisduval, J. B. A. de & Guenée, A., Histoire naturelle des insectes. Species général des lépidoptères, Paris, vol. 9:142. Holotype ♀, “ Nouvelle-Hollande ” [Australia], incorrect locality, actually North America [MNHU]. T. lorata Grote, A. R., 1864. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Philadelphia, 3:91. Syntypes ♂, ♀, Eastern and Middle States [USA]. Location of types unknown. Note: After his death, the specimens in Grote’s collection were scattered and many were damaged or destroyed. Diagnosis: Recognized by white or creamy-white wings, DFW transverse pale brown PM line, absent AM line and discal spot. Description: Adults (Figs. 16–18): FWL: 19–26 mm. Antenna (stated as prismatic by some authors) essentially filiform, ventrally minutely setose, thinner in females. Palpi, upcurved, short (about to horizontal midline of eye), tan scales on outer side, paler inward. Head, thorax, abdomen, legs, wings concolorous varying across individuals from white to creamy-white; tarsal spines brown. Wings: DFW with thin straight brown transverse PM line from apex to inner margin (sometimes indistinct) discal spot absent; DHW unmarked. Underside unmaculated. Male genitalia (Figs. 88, 103): Uncus decurved, slender, tapering to pointed apex. Gnathos with pair of robust upcuved spines projecting from dorso-caudal margin. Stubby furca from middle of anellus tapers to rounded apex. Valve broad, tapering slightly to rounded apex lacking an apical projection. Aedeagus with incomplete ring of widely-spaced spinules at posterior end at base of vesica; everted vesica elongate with expanded midsection on which is situated an oblong sclerotized plate containing short spinules. Female genitalia (Fig. 119): A/P = 0.55. Very short, linearly sclerotized ductus bursae expands to join unsclerotized sack-like corpus bursae. Signum oval and strongly dentate. Material examined: Numerous specimens, number not recorded; two dissections in addition to examination of genitalic illustrations in the literature. Biology: Life history by Forbes (1948) and McGuffin (1987:84). Many recorded larval hosts, some of which are Alnus, Betula, Prunus, Salix, Tilia, Ulmus, Viburnum, Abies, Larix, Pinus, Tsuga. See also Heppner, 2003, p. 348. Adults May—early July, depending upon locality. A montane and piedmont species. Distribution (Fig. 134): Nova Scotia to central British Columbia, south to northern Florida, and west to Montana and northern Colorado. Specific province/state/county records are: CANADA: ALBERTA. East and south of Calgary and Red Deer to Saskatchewan and Montana border. MANITOBA. Duck Mtn. Prov. Park. QUEBEC. Numerous localities across southern Quebec were cited by Handfield (1999). UNITED STATES: ALABAMA. Clay, Cleburne, Dekalb, Jackson, Madison. ARKANSAS. Logan. COLORADO. Larimer. CONNECTICUT. New Haven. FLORIDA. Panhandle region (Heppner, 2003). GEORGIA. Gilmer. Towns, Whitfield. ILLINOIS. Cook, McHenry, Putnam. INDIANA. Elkhart, Lagrange. KANSAS. Douglas, Pottawatomie. KENTUCKY. Grayson. MAINE. Hancock, Kennebec, Penobscot, Piscataquis. MARYLAND. Alleghany, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Garrett, Harford, Kent, Prince George's. MASSACHUSETTS. Hampden, Norfolk. MICHIGAN. Baraga, Chippewa, Cheboygan, Chippewa, Keweenaw, Montcalm, Muskegon. MINNESOTA. Carver, Hennepin, Houston, Hubbard, Lake, St. Louis. MISSISSIPPI. Oktibbeha, Tishomingo. MISSOURI. Clay. MONTANA. Lewis & Clark. NEBRASKA. Sioux. NEW HAMPSHIRE. Coos, Grafton, Sullivan. NEW YORK. Bronx, Kings, Nassau, Orleans, Rockland, Tompkins, Ulster. NORTH CAROLINA. Allegheny, Ashe, Avery, Carteret, Craven, Durham, Jones, Haywood, Macon, New Hanover, Swain. NORTH DAKOTA. Bottineau, Cass, Ransom, Rolette. OHIO. Adams, Athens, Cuyahoga, Erie, Geauga, Hamilton, Hocking, Lucas, Mahoning, Pickaway, Portage, Seneca, Vinton, Wayne. PENNSYLVANIA. Beaver, Bucks, Carbon, Centre, Chester, Mifflin, York. SOUTH CAROLINA. Greenville. SOUTH DAKOTA. Day. TENNESSEE. Blount, Cocke, Sevier, Sullivan. VERMONT. Chittenden, Windham. VIRGINIA. Arlington, Grayson, Rockingham, Smyth. WEST VIRGINIA. Pendleton. WISCONSIN. Adams, Brown, Florence, Iowa, Juneau, La Crosse, Manitowoc, Marquette, Menomonee, Milwaukee, Monroe, Sauk, Shawano, Sheboygan, Rock, Washburn, Waukesha, Waupaca.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".