Platylabus rubricapensis Provancher 1882
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Platylabus rubricapensis Provancher, 1882 (Figures 30, 31) Platylabus Rubri Capensis Provancher, 1882: 329 (descr.). Platylabus Rubricapensis Provancher 1886: 35 (key). Platylabus rubricapensis Cresson 1887: 191 (cat.); Dalla Torre 1902: 788 (cat.); Bradley 1903: 281 (distr., key, fig.); Berthoumieu 1904: 57 (cat.); Gahan and Rohwer 1918a: 168 (lectotype designation); Brimley 1942: 30 (distr.); Townes 1944: 313 (cat.); Townes and Townes 1951: 281 (distr., cat.); Strickland 1952: 120 (distr.); Heinrich 1962b: 712 (descr., distr., key); Heinrich 1975: 774 (distr., neallotype designation); Barron 1975: 546 (notes); Carlson 1979: 545 (cat., distr., notes); Yu and Horstmann 1997: 680 (cat.); Yu et al. 2016 (cat.). Original type series Lectotype ♀, designated by Gahan and Rohwer (1918a, p. 168) (LUEC). Provancher (1882, p. 329) described ‘ Platylabus Rubri Capensis ’ from Québec without specifying the number of specimens included in the description. Gahan and Rohwer (1918a, p. 168) designated the lectotype, addressing it as ‘Type– Female, yellow label 717. 2nd Coll. Pub. Mus., Quebec’. Subsequently, Heinrich (1962b, p. 774) incorrectly employed the term ‘Holotypus’ for the same specimen. Barron (1975, p. 546) considered valid the designation of Gahan and Rohwer (1918a, p. 168). b) Habitus, lateral view. c) Head, frontal view. d) Labels. Type locality Canada, Québec, ‘Cap-Rouge’. No type locality is given on the lectotype labels or in the original description, but the species has been described as ‘Platylabe du-CapRouge’ (= Platylabus from Cap-Rouge). Cap-Rouge is a former city in central Québec. Type specimens examined (Figure 30) Holotype: ‘[Yellow label] 717/[White label] Platylabus / rubricapensis /Prov. // [Red label] LECTOTYPE / PLATYLABUS /RUBRI CAPENSIS/ Provancher 717/ Gahan & Rohwer ’15/Barron ‘71’ (images examined). Updated distribution (Figure 31) CANADA: Alberta (Strickland 1952), Newfoundland and Labrador (Heinrich 1975), Ontario (Heinrich 1962b), Québec (Provancher 1882); UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Georgia (Fattig 1950), Idaho (Heinrich 1962b), Michigan (Carlson 1979), New York (Heinrich 1962b), Oregon (Carlson 1979), South Dakota (Heinrich 1962b). Host Unknown. Male The first description of a male was provided by Heinrich (1975, p. 774), who referred to the specimen as the neallotype. Comments Townes and Townes (1951, p. 281) recorded the species for Québec, New York and North Carolina. However, as noted by Heinrich (1962b, p. 712), these last two state records refer to Platylabus rubristernatus Heinrich, 1962b (see below). The correct first record for New York must be attributed to Heinrich (1962b, p. 712), while the species has yet to be recorded for North Carolina. Yu et al. (2016) failed to list the type locality (Québec) and all the records provided by Heinrich (1962b, p. 712) and Carlson (1979, p. 545) among the distribution locality of the species. Provancher (1882) described the species under the name ‘ Rubri Capensis ’. Carlson (1979, p. 545) considered it an ‘invalid’ name because it was not binomial, and proposed the use of Platylabus rubricapensis Provancher, 1886, since the redescription contained a ‘valid binomen’. Subsequent authors kept using rubricapensis Provancher, 1882 as a valid authorship without adding any reason for rejecting Carlson’s (1979) observation (Yu and Horstmann 1997; Yu et al. 2016). We hereby provide a rationale to solve the confusion. Firstly, Carlson (1979) used the term ‘invalid’; however, the name would have been unavailable rather than invalid (see differences between Chapters 4 and 6 of ICZN (1999)). Secondly, the two words together refer to a single entity (i.e., from Red Cape (= Cap Rouge, Québec, Canada)) and are accepted to form a species-group name; they are deemed to form a single word and are united without a hyphen (rubricapensis) (ICZN 1999, Articles 11.9.5 and 32.5.2.2). Therefore, Platylabus rubricapensis Provancher 1882 is an available name.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.009 |
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".