MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6912841114 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5770327

Lycaea pachypoda

2021· article· en· W6912841114 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGallon (US)St louisQualitative analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lycaea pachypoda (Claus, 1879) (Figs 12–13) Pseudolycaea pachypoda Claus, 1879: 187 (41).— Carus 1885: 426.— Bovallius 1887: 34 — Claus 1887: 64–65, pl. 20, figs 12–22.— Chevreux 1892: 33.—Chevreux & Fage 1925: 430–431, fig. 420.— Stephensen 1925: 169–171, 230 (tab.), fig. 64.— Spandl 1927: 215–216, fig. 36.— Pirlot 1929: 138–139.— Pirlot 1939a: 43–44.— Pirlot 1939b: 70.— Evans 1961: 203.— Vinogradov 1962: 24–25.—Hure et al. 1969: 603, 605 (tabs.).— Dick 1970: 68, fig. 12 (part).— Tashiro & Jossi 1972: fig. 8 (map), 20 (list), 33 (tab.).— Harbison et al. 1977: 470.— Shulenberger 1977: 379 (tab.).— Shih & Chen 1995: 183–185, figs 120–121. Lycaea pachypoda. — Hurley 1969: 33, pl. 19 (map 8).— Laval 1980: 19, 20, 23 (tabs.).— Vinogradov et al. 1982 /1996: 382/472 (key), 388–389/479–480, fig. 209.— Barkhatov & Vinogradov 1988: passim.— Vinogradov 1990: 76, 94 (tab.).— Vinogradov 1991: 261 (tab.).— De Broyer & Jażdżewski 1993: 118 (list).— Lin & Chen 1994: 115, 118 (list).— Lin et al. 1995: 122 (tab.).— Lin et al. 1996: 230 (tab.).— Zeidler 1998: 101–104, figs 58–59.— Barkhatov et al. 1999: 808 (tab.).— Vinogradov 1999: 1146 (tab.), 1194 (incl. key), fig. 4.139.— Lowry 2000: 326 (list).— Escobar-Briones et al. 2002: 367 (list).— Gasca 2003b: 118 (tab.).— Vinogradov et al. 2004: 16, 25 (tab.).— Brusca & Hendrickx 2005: 151 (list).— Gasca 2007: 119 (tab.).— Gasca 2009a: 89 (tab.).— Gasca 2009b: 66 (tab.).— Lavaniegos & Hereu 2009: passim.— LeCroy et al. 2009: 969 (tab.).— Valencia & Giraldo 2009: 268 (tab.), passim.— Zeidler & De Broyer 2009: 65–66.—Gasca et al. 2012: passim.— Valencia et al. 2013: 51 (tab.).— Gasca & Franco-Gordo 2014: 75 (list).— Lavaniegos 2014: passim.—Espinosa- Leal & Lavaniegos 2016: 150 (tab.). Type material. Type material of Pseudolycaea pachypoda could not be found in any major European institution and is considered lost. The type locality is the Mediterranean Sea, near Messina, Italy and the western Indian Ocean, near Zanzibar. Claus’s (1887) illustration of a female readily characterise this distinctive species. Material examined. In NHMD: numerous specimens from the Dana and Thor expeditions and others, too many to list here, from all the World’s Oceans including the Mediterranean Sea. In SAM: S.W. Atlantic: off South Africa [33°S 17°19’E & 35°40’S 18°06’E], 2 females (2 lots). In SAMA: S.W. Pacific, Tasman Sea, off central eastern Australia [about 34°–43°S], 22 females, 14 males (9 lots), C5265–73 and off eastern Tasmania [42°45 ’– 44°14’S], 15 females, 9 males (7 lots), C12570–76. In USNM: N.W. Atlantic, Bermuda [31.93°N 63.77°W], 1 female, extracted from 1153747. N.E. Pacific, off Central America [12°27’N 111°42’W and 14.517°N 109.533°W], 2 females, 1264034, 1264063. Diagnosis. Body length of females up to 6.0 mm, males up to 7.0 mm. Body of females more globular than other congeners. Head of females relatively small, almost 2 x as deep as long, as long as first 3 pereonites combined. Head of males more rounded than in females, marginally longer. Buccal mass protruded well below head. Callynophore of A1 of males without antero-distal corner; postero-distal corner small, rounded, barely partly over-lapping following article. G1 and G2 almost simple, morphologically similar, G2 slightly longer than G1. G1 basis very broad, width about 0.5 x length, with inflated anterior margin; carpus sub-quadrate with slightly serrated postero-distal corner, extending slightly posterior to propodus; propodus with postero-distal corner produced posteriorly to dactylus; dactylus robust, length about 0.5 x propodus. G2 similar to G1 but basis more slender and longer, carpus slightly narrowed distally and postero-distal corner of propodus is smaller. P3–6 with relatively short, stubby dactylus, those of P3 and P4 only about 0.2 x propodus. P3 and P4 morphologically similar, P4 marginally longer than P3; merus slightly inflated anteriorly, length sub-equal to propodus or slightly longer, about 0.5 x basis; carpus sub-equal in length to propodus. P5 only slightly longer than P6, about 1.3–1.4 x P4; basis rectangular, length 1.6 x maximum width (marginally less in males); merus marginally inflated anteriorly, slightly shorter than propodus, about 0.5 x length basis; carpus length about 0.8 x propodus. P6 basis relatively broad, length 1.4 x maximum width, almost as long as basis of P5; merus broader than for P5, maximum width about 0.6 x length, sub-equal in length to propodus, marginally longer than 0.4 x basis; carpus slightly inflated, length marginally less than 0.8 x propodus; anterior margin of carpus and propodus, and antero-distal corner of merus, slightly serrated. P7 basis with bulging posterior margin (more proximally in females), length about 1.8 x maximum width, slightly more than 0.8 x basis of P6; length of remaining articles 0.5–0.6 x basis; propodus with antero-distal corner produced into rounded lobe; dactylus sharp, hook-like. U1 and U2; endopod not fused with peduncle. U1 peduncle length about 2.0 x exopod; endopod slightly broader than endopod, equal in length. Telson length about 1.4 x width at base, or marginally shorter. Remarks. Lycaea pachypoda is readily distinguished from all its congeners by the morphology of G1 and G2, which are almost simple. Prior to Vinogradov et al. (1982, 1996) this species was relegated to the monotypic genus Pseudolycaea Claus, 1879. However, apart from G1 and G2, it is very similar to other species of Lycaea and the generic distinction cannot be maintained. Like L. pulex, L. pachypoda has been recorded from the salp Salpa maxima and pyrosomes (Chevreux 1892, 1900; Chevreux & Fage 1925; Laval 1980). It has also been recorded from the medusa Liriope tetraphylla (Chamisso & Eysenhardt, 1821) (Harbison et al. 1977). Distribution. A relatively uncommon species but widely distributed in the tropical and temperate regions of all the world’s oceans, including the Mediterranean Sea, generally between the Subtropical Convergences. Vinogradov (1962) also records it from the Southern Ocean, off Australia, at about 45 °S. Most catch records are from nearsurface waters.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.008

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207