Rothaeina beaudini Bennett & Copley & Copley 2023, spec. nov.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rothaeina beaudini Bennett spec. nov. Figs 66–69, 85 Type material. U.S.A.: California: Holotype female. Tehama County, near junction south of Lassen Volcanic National Park, 19.ix.1961, W. Ivie & W.J. Gertsch (AMNH). Paratypes. Butte, 1♀, 3.3 mi. from junction of Humbug & Understock Roads, 5.v.1966, Dokes (CAS); Plumas, 1♀, 9.2 mi. NE of Bucks Lake, 4.ix.1988, D. Ubick (CAS); 7♀, S side of Lake Almanor, 5.ix.1959, V.D. Roth & W.J. Gertsch (AMNH); Shasta, 1♀, 5 mi. N of Manzanita Lake, 19.ix.1961, W. Ivie & W.J. Gertsch (AMNH); 3♀, Delta, N end of Shasta Lake, 3.ix.1959, W.J. Gertsch & V.D. Roth (AMNH); 4♀, Emigrant Ford Rd., 4 mi. S of Old Station, 4.ix.1959, V.D. Roth & W.J. Gertsch (AMNH); Tehama, 1♀, Hwy 89, 3.5 mi. S of Lassen Volcanic National Park, 8.viii.1968, F.O. Leech (UASM); 5♀, nr. junction S of Lassen Volcanic National Park, 19.ix.1961, W. Ivie & W.J. Gertsch (AMNH); Etymology. The specific name is a patronym honouring Beaudin A. Bennett who was born in January 1985 at the beginning of the first author’s study of Nearctic Cybaeinae. Diagnosis. As is common among females of other Cybaeinae as well as other supraspecific taxa of spiders (Bennett 2006), intraspecific variability and interspecific similarity of genitalic morphology characters can render the females of Rothaeina gen. nov. difficult to distinguish from each other. In some cases, collection with accompanying males, or geographic locality, may provide the best indication of species identification of females. The male of R. beaudini spec. nov. is unknown; the female can usually be distinguished from its congeners by a combination of epigynal, atrial, and spermathecal characters. The atrium (Fig. 66) is usually small but prominent and U-shaped and, although various components of the vulval ducts are visible through the integument of the uncleared epigyne, none appear decidedly ring-shaped. The vulva (Figs 67–69) is relatively narrow with width (measured at widest extent of spermathecae) usually less than 3.5 times atrial height (measured from epigastric groove to atrium). Additionally, in the vulva the path of the copulatory and spermathecal ducts is relatively easily to trace from the atrium to the fertilization ducts and the medial transverse section of the spermathecae is inconspicuous in dorsal view. In the females of the other species of Rothaeina gen. nov., the atrium is usually small but inconspicuous and never U-shaped (Figs 70, 73, 75, 80). Furthermore, the females of R petersoni spec. nov. and R. sequoia comb. nov. are unique among the females of Rothaeina gen. nov. in having the posterior-most spermathecal ducts clearly visible through the integument of the uncleared epigyne as circular, ring-like structures (Figs 75, 80) and the vulva is relatively broad (vulval width usually 4–5 times atrial height) (Figs 77–79, 81–83). Finally, in the females of the remaining two species (R. jamesi spec. nov. and R. mackinleyi spec. nov.), the vulval ducts (Figs 72, 74) are more complex with the path from the atrium to the fertilization ducts difficult to trace and, in dorsal view, the medial transverse section of each spermatheca is prominent and conspicuous. Description. As in diagnosis and description of the genus. Additional descriptive characters presented here. Abdomen pale or gray, lightly patterned. Male: Unknown. Female: (n=24). Epigyne (Fig. 66) with single, anteromedial atrium; atrium occasionally reduced or apparently absent. Vulva (Figs 67–69) with copulatory ducts separated at atrium; spermathecal ducts not as convoluted as in other species; Bennett’s glands within medial third of spermathecal ducts. Measurements (n=20). CL 1.95–2.45 (2.26+0.15), CW 1.48–1.90 (1.73+0.11), SL 1.09–1.33 (1.23+0.07), SW 1.03–1.24 (1.14+0.06). Holotype CL 2.25, CW 1.73, SL 1.24, SW 1.17. Note: Two species may be represented here. Specimens from the northwestern part of the distribution around Shasta Lake have more heavily pigmented abdomens and somewhat more complex spermathecal ducts (Fig. 67) than specimens from southeast of Shasta Lake (Figs 68–69). Because the male of R. beaudini spec. nov. is unknown and the vulval and atrial characters of females tend to be variable even within populations, all these specimens are here considered to be members of R. beaudini spec. nov. Distribution and natural history. (Fig. 85). Rothaeina beaudini spec. nov. is endemic to north central and northeastern California, U.S.A., from the Shasta Lake area southeast to the northern Sierra Nevada. Within that area, females appear to have been relatively common in the 1950s and 1960s but only a single specimen has been recorded since the 1960s (in 1988) and the conservation status of this taxon is currently unknown.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.016 |
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".