Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study redefines the systematic arrangement and taxonomic status of some anoplocephaline cestodes previously allocated among the genera Andrya Railliet, 1893, Paranoplocephala Lühe, 1910, and Aprostatandrya Kirshenblat, 1938. Comparisons indicated that Paranoplocephala omphalodes (Hermann, 1783), type species of Paranoplocephala, differs morphologically from its congeners, all of which conform to the diagnosis of the genus Anoplocephaloides Baer, 1923, hitherto considered a synonym of Paranoplocephala, and that it cannot be distinguished at the generic level from Aprostatandrya macrocephala (Douthitt, 1915), type of the genus Aprostatandrya. The distinction between Andrya and Aprostatandrya based on the presence or absence of a “prostate gland” does not exist, for neither the type species of Andrya, A. rhopalocephala (Riehm, 1881), nor A. cuniculi (Blanchard, 1891) possesses such an organ; rather, the structure of the external seminal vesicle in these cestodes does not differ fundamentally from that in P. omphalodes or in species of Aprostatandrya. Based on these findings, Aprostatandrya Kirshenblat, 1938 is placed in synonymy with Paranoplocephala Lühe, 1910, and Anoplocephaloides Baer, 1923 is restored to contain all species other than P. omphalodes formerly allocated to the genus Paranoplocephala. If the pattern of development of the uterus in A. rhopalocephala is found to be like that in P. omphalodes, Paranoplocephala Lühe, 1910 will in turn also become a synonym of Andrya Railliet, 1893. Three additional species of Anoplocephaloides are described, and the zoogeography of Anoplocephaloides spp. and their mammalian hosts is briefly discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.025 |
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".