Iphthiminus opacus LeConte 1866
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Iphthiminus opacus (LeConte 1866) (Figs. 4, 5, 6, Appendix 2) Iphthimus opacus LeConte 1866a: 121, 172, 174 [Type Area: Nebraska, Kansas, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Oklahoma, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, etc. (see notes on types). Type repository: MCZ] LeConte 1866b: 61; Casey 1890: 408; Slosson 1893: 290; Slosson 1894: 4; Bowditch 1896: 9; Casey 1924: 327; Leng et al. 1920: 235. Iphthinus opacus: Spilman 1973b: 89. Iphthiminus opacus: Poole and Gentili 1996: 437; Bousquet 1991; 261; Majka et al. 2008: 694, 708, 709. Notes about type material. No specific gender of specimens was mentioned in the original description. There are four type specimens: one lectotype and three paralectotypes. The lectotype (here designated) is of undetermined gender, and has the following labels: light green circular label/ [handwritten det label] “I. rugosus Lec.”/ “ opacus Lec ”/ “ Type 7206”/ “Jan-Jul 2005 MCZ Image Database” / [red label] “ LECTOTYPE Iphthimus opacus LeConte design. Gardiner & Pollock 2015”. The three paralectotypes are unlabeled, except for a small circular label on each (two with pink label, one with light green label). The lectotype has the following characteristics: all appendages intact, elytra separated posteriorly. Light green circular labels represent localities in Nebraska, Kansas, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Oklahoma, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, etc. (pers. comm., Dr. Philip Perkins, 2013). Description. With general features of Iphthiminus, and the following characteristics: GHW 2.5–3.8 mm.; GPW 4.00– 6.45 mm; GEW 5.15–8.2 mm; HL 2.7–4.5 mm; PL 2.7–4.7 mm; EL 9.4–14.5 mm; TL 14.8–22.7 mm; ratio of HL/HL 0.71–1.1; PW/PL 1.05–1.54; GEW/EL 0.47–0.67; HW/PW 0.52–0.75; HL/PL.77–1.16; PL/EL 0.27–0.37; TL/GEW 2.46–3.27; GEW/EL 1.5–2.12; PW/GEW 0.60–0.89. Pronotal punctation coarse, punctures confluent, giving rise to pronotal sculpturing, lateral edges of pronotum distinctly serrate; elytral striae extremely coarse, often overlapping to form ‘dashes’; apex of parameres closely associated with each other, slightly flared. Diagnosis. Specimens of Iphthiminus opacus (Fig. 4) are diagnosed on the following characteristics: pronotum and elytra rugose, with punctures often confluent, pronotal margins distinctly serrate, paramere apices closely associated (Fig. 5). Distribution. Based on examined specimens, the geographic range (Fig. 6) of this species is as follows, organized by county (detailed locality list in Appendix 2): UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Arizona: Maricopa (1). California: Riverside (1), San Bernardino (1), Unknown (1). Connecticut: Litchfield (1). Maine: Aroostook (2), Hancock (3), Lincoln (1), Penobscot (5), Washington (1), York (2), Unknown (1). Massachusetts: Barnstable (1), Essex (3), Franklin (2), Worcester (1), Unknown (6). Michigan: Alcona (1), Alger (2), Arenac (1), Baraga (1), Charlevoix (2), Cheboygan (8), Chippewa (5), Delta (1), Emmet (1), Lake (1), Mackinac (1), Marquette (23), Newaygo (1), Wayne (1), Unknown (5). Minnesota: Beltrami (9), Cass (1), Hubbard (1), Ramsey (1), Roseau (1), Saint Louis (9), Unknown (7). Montana: Carter (1). New Hampshire: Carroll (1), Cheshire (1), Coos (3), Grafton (4), Hillsborough (1), Strafford (6), Sullivan (4), Unknown (2). New York: Clinton (3), Essex (9), Nassau (1), St. Lawrence (4), Unknown (15). Pennsylvania: Lycoming (1), Monroe (6), Northampton (1), Pike (2), Potter (1), Westmoreland (4). South Dakota: Custer (5), Fall River (1), Pennington (1), Unknown (7). Texas: Unknown (1). Vermont: Bennington (1), Windsor (1). Virginia: Henrico (1). Wisconsin: Bayfield (11), Oconto (1), Vilas (5), Waupaca (1), Unknown (1). Wyoming: Crook (8), Unknown (2). CANADA. Alberta (1). Manitoba (10). Nova Scotia (4). Quebec (39). Ontario (22). Saskatchewan (1). Unknown (4).
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".