MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6912823781 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.8319511

Lasioglossum (Dialictus) rufodeludens Gardner & Gibbs 2023, sp. nov.

2023· article· en· W6912823781 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFern and Epiphyte Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDorsumMargin (machine learning)Computed tomographyTaxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lasioglossum (Dialictus) rufodeludens sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: D04BB5BC-FD13-4140-8449-9CA4A9A6C241 Figs 57– 59, 76N Diagnosis Females of L. rufodeludens sp. nov. have the tegula relatively small (maximum length half or less ITS and barely reaching posterior margin of mesoscutum in dorsal view if at all), yellow-orange, impunctate, and with inner posterior margin straight; mesoscutum and mesepisternum completely dull, tessellate to imbricate; postgena smooth, shiny or lineolate; T1 anterior slope shiny (sometimes weakly coriarious but not appearing dull), and metasoma red-orange. Females of L. rufodeludens sp. nov. are most similar to those of L. deludens sp. nov., L. ellisiae, and L. profundum sp. nov. Females of L. ellisiae have the tegula at least sparsely punctate and the inner posterior margin sinuous, mesoscutum and mesepisternum posterior half often shiny, postgena lineate, and T1 anterior slope dull and coriarious. See the diagnosis for L. deludens for a comparative diagnosis between the other similar species. Males of L. rufodeludens sp. nov. have the tegula relatively small (as in the female); mesoscutum tessellate and moderately densely punctate (IS = 1–2 PD); and face with dense tomentum up to eye emargination. They are most similar to those of L. deludens sp. nov. and L. profundum sp. nov. See the diagnosis for L. deludens for a comparative diagnosis between these three species. Both sexes are also somewhat similar to those of L. gemmatum and L. surianae, which have the tegula at least obscurely punctate and are restricted to the Caribbean islands and Florida keys. Females of these species also have the mesepisternum shiny, and males have the face with tomentum limited to lower paraocular area. Etymology The specific epithet ʻ rufodeludens ʼ is a participle derived from the Latin adjective ʻ rufo ʼ (red) plus the present participle ʻ deludens ʼ (deceiving). It refers to this species’ red metasoma and its close similarity to L. deludens sp. nov. An appropriate translation would be the red deceiving sweat bee. Material examined Holotype UNITED STATES – Texas • ♀; Hidalgo Co., Bentsen Rio Grande State Park; 26.186° N, 98.374° W; 16 Mar. 2007; J.L. Neff leg.; ex Salix nigra; PCYU. [Verbatim label: 32047 // TEXAS: Hidalgo Co. / Bentsen Rio Grande SP / 26.186° N 98.374° W / 16- iii-2007 J.L. Neff // on flowers of Salix nigra // CCDB-01566 H2 // Lasioglossum (Dialictus) hunteri det J.L. Neff 2008 // HOLOTYPE / Lasioglossum (Dialictus) rufodeludens Gardner and Gibbs] Paratypes MEXICO – Nuevo Leon • 1 ♀, 4 ♂♂; 4 km S of Linares; [24.81° N, 99.55° W]; elev. 400 m; 22 Mar. 1991; R. Brooks, R. Leschen leg.; ex Prosopis laevigata; SEMC. – Tamaulipas • 1 ♂; 22 mi. S of Jiménez; [23.9° N, 98.48° W]; 15 Jun. 1953; University of Kansas Mexico Expedition leg.; ex Lippia; SEMC • 1 ♀; 8 mi. NE of San Fernando; [24.93° N, 98.06° W]; 27 Aug. 1954; SEMC • 1 ♀, 1 ♂; 8 mi. S of Jiménez; [24.1° N, 98.49° W]; 15 Jun. 1953; SEMC • 1 ♀; Jaumave, “El Chihue”; [23.4° N, 99.37° W]; 19 Oct. 1995; Larisa Loya leg.; BBSL1101050 • 1 ♀, 1 ♂; Jiménez; [24.22° N, 98.49° W]; 19 Jul. 1962; University of Kansas Mexico Expedition leg.; SEMC. UNITED STATES – Texas • 1 ♀; Eagle Pass; [28.71° N, 100.5° W]; 13 Nov. 1965; W.F. Chamberlain leg.; TAMU-ENTO X1389895. Description Female COLOURATION. Head and mesosoma blue to olive green; clypeus apex black; labrum reddish brown; mandible orange with black base and red apex; flagellum black dorsally, brown ventrally. Pronotal lobe reddish brown; legs reddish brown with femur-tibia joints and tarsi orange; tegula orange; wing membrane lightly infuscated, veins with subcosta dark brown, otherwise brown. Metasoma orange with dark spiracular spots on T3–T4 and rims of terga and sterna broadly translucent. PUBESCENCE. Body pile colour white. Tomentum dense on gena, pronotal collar and lobe, and space between pronotal lobe and tegula; sparse on paraocular area, T2–T3 basolaterally, and T4 throughout. Mesoscutum pubescence thin to moderately plumose. Wing setae dark, short and dense. Acarinarial fan complete, dense. T2 fringes sparse, T3 fringes sparse. SURFACE SCULPTURE. Clypeus shiny, with punctures dense in basal third (IS ≤ 1 PD), large and irregularly sparse apically (IS <2 PD); supraclypeal area shiny, with punctures moderately dense (IS = 1–2 PD); paraocular area imbricate around antenna socket, otherwise shiny, with punctures dense (IS <1 PD), sparser around antenna socket (IS ≤ 1 PD); frons shiny, with punctures fine, dense (IS <1 PD); vertex shiny, with punctures dense laterally (IS ≤ 1 PD), minute and sparse medially (IS = 2–4 PD); gena shiny, with punctures absent; postgena lineolate, becoming shiny anteriorly. Tegula punctures absent; mesoscutum tessellate, with punctures dense (IS ≤ 1 PD), becoming sparser anteromedially (IS = 1–2 PD); scutellum tessellate, becoming shiny submedially, with punctures dense marginally (IS <1 PD), moderately sparse submedially (IS = 1–2 PD); metapostnotum shiny, with rugae strong, anastomosing, reaching posterior margin; preëpisternum areolate-rugulose; hypoepimeron weakly imbricate, with punctures dense (IS <1 PD); mesepisternum imbricate, with punctures dense (IS <1 PD); metepisternum weakly rugulose; propodeum lateral surface rugulose anteriorly, tessellate posteriorly, posterior surface tessellate. T1 anterior slope shiny, disc shiny, with punctures moderately sparse (IS = 1–2 PD), absent in large subapicolateral boss and on rim medially; T2 disc shiny, with punctures moderately dense (IS = 1–2 PD), apical rim weakly coriarious, with punctures minute, sparse (IS = 2–4 PD). STRUCTURE. Face length/width ratio 0.81 (± 0.01 SD); clypeus apicolateral denticles low rounded knobs; gena/eye width ratio 0.89 (±0.07 SD). Pronotal angle slightly obtuse, nearly right-angled; intertegular span 0.77 (± 0.05 SD) mm; mesoscutum length/width ratio 0.86 (± 0.03 SD); mesoscutum/scutellum length ratio 2.78 (± 0.25 SD); scutellum/metanotum length ratio 1.71 (± 0.18 SD); metanotum/metapostnotum length ratio 0.74 (± 0.08 SD); forewing with 3 submarginal cells; tegula enlarged, reaching posterior margin of mesoscutum; inner margin straight; tegula length 0.35 (±0.02 SD) mm, width 0.2 (± 0.01 SD) mm; propodeum lateral carinae not reaching dorsal margin; oblique carina strong, straight. T2 depressed apical rim less than 50% of tergum. (n = 7) VARIATION. The mesoscutum punctures can vary from moderately sparse (IS = 1–2 PD) to dense (IS ≤1 PD) and the clypeus apical half, labrum, and pronotal lobe can vary from dark reddish brown to orange. Male COLOURATION. Head and mesosoma blue-green to olive green; clypeus apex black; labrum orange; mandible orange with black basal spot and red apex; flagellum reddish brown dorsally, orange ventrally. Pronotal lobe orange; legs reddish brown; tegula orange; wing membrane lightly infuscated, veins dark brown. Metasoma black with depressed apical rims and downcurved lateral areas of terga broadly translucent reddish brown. PUBESCENCE. Body pile colour white. Tomentum dense on face below eye emargination, gena, pronotal angle and lobe, and space between pronotal lobe and tegula; sparse on metepisternum. Mesoscutum pubescence simple to moderately plumose. Wing setae dark, short and dense. Sterna pubescence short (<1 OD), moderately plumose, sparse. SURFACE SCULPTURE. Clypeus shiny, with punctures dense (IS <1 PD); supraclypeal area shiny, with punctures dense (IS ≤ 1 PD); paraocular area shiny, with punctures fine, crowded (IS = 0 PD); frons shiny, with punctures fine, crowded (IS = 0 PD); vertex shiny, with punctures dense (IS <1 PD); gena shiny, with punctures fine, dense (IS ≤ 1 PD); postgena imbricate-lineate. Tegula punctures absent; mesoscutum tessellate, becoming shiny posterolaterally, with punctures dense (IS ≤ 1 PD), becoming slightly sparser submedially (IS = 1–2 PD); scutellum shiny, with punctures dense (IS ≤ 1 PD); metanotum finely rugulose; metapostnotum shiny to imbricate, with rugae shallow, subparallel, nearly reaching posterior margin; preëpisternum shiny with crowded punctures (IS = 0 PD); hypoepimeron shiny, with punctures crowded (IS = 0 PD); mesepisternum shiny, with punctures crowded (IS = 0 PD); metepisternum areolate, becoming smooth dorsally; propodeum lateral surface shiny to imbricate, with punctures dense (IS ≤ 1 PD), posterior surface shiny and densely punctate (IS ≤1 PD). T1 anterior slope shiny, disc shiny, with punctures fine, moderately dense (IS = 1–2 PD), becoming sparse in small subapicolateral boss (IS = 1–4 PD) and absent on rim; T2 disc shiny, with punctures moderately dense (IS = 1–2 PD), apical rim shiny, with punctures absent. STRUCTURE. Face length/width ratio 0.86 (±0.02 SD); gena/eye width ratio 0.66 (± 0.09 SD). Pronotal angle obtuse; intertegular span 0.7 (± 0.03 SD) mm; mesoscutum length/width ratio 0.91 (± 0.02 SD); mesoscutum/scutellum length ratio 2.84 (± 0.19 SD); scutellum/metanotum length ratio 1.84 (±0.17 SD); metanotum/metapostnotum length ratio 0.68 (± 0.1 SD); forewing with 3 submarginal cells; tegula enlarged, nearly reaching posterior margin of mesoscutum in dorsal view; inner posterior margin straight; tegula length 0.34 (± 0.01 SD) mm, width 0.19 (± 0 SD) mm; propodeum lateral carinae not reaching dorsal margin; oblique carina absent. (n = 5) GENITALIA. As in Fig. 76N. Gonocoxite about 1.7 times as broad as gonostylus. Gonostylus rounded on outer margin with no concavities, sinuous on inner margin, with sparse long setae in middle of inner margin and short setae apically. Penis valves divergent apically. Retrorse lobe rounded, about 2.5 times as long as broad, evenly covered in short sparse setae. VARIATION. The mesoscutum can vary from entirely tessellate to partially shiny posterolaterally and the metapostnotum can vary from mostly shiny to mostly imbricate. Range Tamaulipas, Nuevo Leon, and southern Texas (Fig. 59). Floral hosts FABACEAE: Prosopis: P. laevigata (Willd.) M.C.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicFern and Epiphyte BiologyFrench-language works237,207