Entobdella squamula Johnston 1929
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entobdella squamula (Heath, 1902) Johnston, 1929 (Figs. 15E, 38) [syn. Epidella squamula Heath, 1902; “ Epibdella squamata Heath ” of Guberlet (1936 /1937); Entobdella hippoglossi of Klassen et al. (1989)]. Type host and locality: Paralichthys californicus (Ayres, 1859), Monterey Bay, California, USA (Heath 1902) (Pleuronectiformes: Paralichthyidae). Other hosts and localities: occasionally on Sebastodes spp. (see Heath 1902). See also Lawler (1981, table 77). Lawler does not include a reference by Margolis (1952) to “ E. squamula ” on the skin of Eopsetta jordani from Sydney Inlet, west coast of Vancouver Island. Guberlet (1936 /1937) reported “ Epibdella squamata Heath ” on “ Hyppoglossus hyppoglossus ” (sic), Paralichthys californicus and Sebastodes (species not named) ranging from Alaska to California. Lawler (1981) suggested that the records of Guberlet from Paralichthys and Sebastodes might be from Heath (1902). Site on host: Skin, rarely gill cavity (Heath 1902). Type series: The original description by Heath (1902) does not mention museum specimens. However, we borrowed a series of paratypes and voucher specimens from USNPC (a total of 10 specimens; see Table 2). In the series of slides with the USNPC No. 039579 (storage no. 213 - 12/17) 1 slide (storage No. 213 – 12) bears the name “ H. Heath ” but the series does not include a designated holotype. In our search for a holotype we approached the Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford University where Heath worked and the Pacific Grove Municipal Museum where he had contacts, but without success. Specimens studied: 8 adult parasites from P. californicus (see Table 2). Redescription (Fig. 38): Total length 7978 (4813 – 12528) (n = 8); body width 4266 (2888 – 7200) (n = 8); haptor length and breadth 2347 (1459 – 3008) (n = 7) and 2150 (1423 – 3038) (n = 8) respectively; accessory sclerite length 334 (268 – 384) (n = 13); anterior hamulus length 768 (596 – 938) (n = 13); posterior hamulus length 146 (113 – 182) (n = 11); pharynx length and breadth 565 (355 – 838) respectively (n = 9); testis length and breadth 713 (400 – 1414) and 787 (513 – 1143) respectively (n = 16). Heath (1902) gives a detailed description. However, our observations indicate that haptor papillae are not restricted to posterior two-thirds of ventral haptor surface (Fig. 38A). No lobed papillae found. Differential diagnosis: Distinguished from E. hippoglossi and two new species described below by differences in mean ratio of lengths of anterior hamuli and accessory sclerites: 2.32 in E. squamula compared with <2 in other species (Table 3). Differs from E. brinkmanni n. sp., E. brattstroemi and E. soleae in shapes of accessory sclerites (cf. Figs. 15E, 38B with Fig. 15F, G, H, J). On skin of Paralichthys californicus [rarely gills (?); see Heath 1902]. Comments. Heath (1902) mentioned that Epidella (sic) (= Entobdella) squamula occurs “far less often upon various species of rock cod (Sebastodes)” but gives no more details. The 2 specimens (USNPC 039581; see Table 2) collected from an undetermined host possibly from the Gulf of Mexico by E.E. Wehr and R. A. Coombs were regarded as E. squamula by Price (1939). However, confirmation of this must await identification and locality of the host and study of more specimens.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".