Uranophora andrei Cock & Laguerre 2022, new combination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uranophora andrei (Rothschild, 1912), new combination Figs. 41–43. BIN: BOLD:AEJ0082 Rothschild (1912) described Ctenucha andrei from Ariapite Valley, Trinidad, and the female type is in NHMUK. Our treatment of this species is based on material from Trinidad compared with the type. The type species of Ctenucha Kirby, 1837 (in Richardson et al. 1837) is Ctenucha latreillana Kirby, 1837 (in Richardson et al. 1837, TL Canada, by monotypy); C. latreillana is a subjective junior synonym of Sphinx virginica Esper, 1794 (Watson et al. 1980, Schmidt & Opler 2008). Based on the public barcodes in BOLD, C. andrei is not closely related to the North American Ctenucha species, including C. virginica. Furthermore, the male genitalia of C. virginica (CUIC 2021) are substantially different to those of C. andrei. The type species of Uranophora Ḩbner, [1831] (in Ḩbner & Geyer [1808] –1837) is U. chalybea Ḩbner, [1831] (in Ḩbner & Geyer [1808] –1837, TL Cuba). No type material is known, and so Cerda (2017) illustrated the male genitalia of a specimen from Cuba, to help define the genus. He then made the new combination Uranophora circe (Cramer, 1780) (in Cramer (1777 –1782), TL Suriname), based on the similarity of the genitalia of the two species, and noted that other species similar to U. circe in appearance and currently placed in Ctenucha or Napata Walker, 1854 would need to be reassessed based on their male genitalia. In habitus, C. andrei closely resembles Cerda’s (2017) treatment of U. circe apart in having the ventral surface of the thorax and abdomen largely white in the male (Figs. 41, 42). The male genitalia are similar (compare Fig. 43 with Cerda’s (2017) Fig. 90), but not the same, so we consider them congeneric. Although Cerda (2017) placed U. circe in Uranophora based on the general similarity to U. chalybea, the type species of the genus, we are not convinced this is correct as there are differences in the male genitalia. However, pending further study, as an interim measure we here transfer Ctenucha andrei to Uranophora to reflect that it does not belong in Ctenucha and it is congeneric with U. circe.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.014 |
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".