Moruseodina Bravo & Cordeiro, gen. nov.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moruseodina Bravo & Cordeiro gen. nov. Type species. Moruseodina cusucoensis sp. nov. Etymology. The prefix “Moru-“ comes from Tupi, an indigenous South American language, and means fly. The postfix “- seodina” indicates the close association with the genus of moth flies Lepiseodina Enderlein. The name is feminine. Diagnosis. Scape short, less than 2X length of pedicel, apical flagellomere projecting in a long digit-like protuberance at apex, ascoids with one or two distal arms. Imaginary line passing through radial and medial forks of wing, ending at the same level or just basal to CuA2. Epandrium wide with one large foramen. Cercus short with 9–10 short tenacula on top. Aedeagus slender with dorsal sheath. Description. Male. Head without cornicula, alveoli patch of frons undivided; eye bridge divided; interocular suture without spur; scape approximately as long as pedicel; antenna with 14 flagellomeres, nodiform with pair of digitiform, curved ascoids; last flagellomere with an elongate apiculus 0.5X length of segment; palpus segment 2–4 subequal in length, first small; last palpus segment striated. Wing ovate; R5 ending at wing apex or just after it; radial and medial forks on about the same level. Epandrium with one large foramen. Cercus short, conical in lateral view; 9–10 tenacula frazzled. Hypandrium narrow. Gonocoxite stout; gonostyle directed downward towards the midline; gonocoxal apodemes fused with medial Y-shaped furca linked to aedeagus; aedeagus slender with dorsal sheath, longer than wide. Female: unkown from type species, described for M. superba (Banks) comb. nov. and Moruseodina conspicua (del Rosario) comb. nov. in del Rosario (1936) as having antennae shorter than in the male; ascoids simple, not elongated S-shaped, but projecting toward internode; subgenital plate broad, bilobed apical half about as long as wide, lobes becoming pointed ar their tips; ovipositor about twice the width of the ventral plate. Immature stages. Pupae and larvae from the type species of Moruseodina are described in this paper, but a generic diagnosis is hard to establish as the immature stages of the other species of Moruseodina are unknown. Nonetheless, a comparative overview of diagnostic morphological characteristics in the immature stages of Clogmia albipunctata (Williston), Lepiseodina tristis (Meigen) and Moruseodina cusucoensis sp. nov. is presented in Table 1. Distribution. This genus is currently known to occur in Central and eastern North America (ON and QC in Canada, MN, WI, MI, IL, MO, TX, LA, AL, NY, MA, PA, MD, DC, VA and SC in the United States) as well as Cusuco National Park in Honduras (Fig. 1). The current distribution of Moruseodina, is restricted to the “new world”. Species of Lepiseodina are restricted to the Palearctic region. Species included. Moruseodina cusucoensis; M. superba (Banks); Moruseodina conspicua (del Rosario). Comments. Moruseodina shows several similarities to Lepiseodina. Both genera have a short scape of almost the same length as pedicel, flagellomeres with paired, digitate ascoids, cercus short and a furca ventral to aedeagus (see Vaillant 1972; Ježek 1990, 2004). Moruseodina and Lepiseodina can be separated based on wing and aedeagal complex characters. In Moruseodina the aedeagus always has a medial slender branch (Figs. 7,9; Quate 1955:fig. 52a; Wagner et al. 2010: fig. 8) and is covered dorsally by a plate longer than wide, and the imaginary line passing through radial and medial forks ends at the same level or just basal to CuA2, while in Lepiseodina the aedeagus has one or two lateral branches with a short or rudimentary dorsal plate and the imaginary line passing through radial and medial forks ends apical to CuA2, sometimes reaching CuA1 (Vaillant 1972:plate VI, figs. 1, 5; Ježek 1990:fig. 54). Based on the diagnostic features of Moruseodina, mainly the long aedeagus covered dorsally by a plate and the relative position of forks at wing, Telmatoscopus superbus and Telmatoscopus conspicuus are placed in the new genus. FIGURES 2–7. Moruseodina cusucoensis sp. nov., adult male. Fig. 2. Overview of head, palpus and antenna. Fig. 3. Head. Fig. 4. Antenna, base. Fig. 5. Antenna, apex. Fig. 6. Palpus. Fig. 7. Wing (en=enlargement of vein R2)
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
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".