Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schizoneura lanuginosa Hartig, 1839 Schizoneura lanuginosa Hartig, 1839: 645. SYNTYPES: 2 (Field no. missing [5.06, 5.07]; 1532 [5.03]; 1741 [5.02]), Ulmus. Eriosoma lanuginosum (Hartig, 1841) (change of combination— Baker, 1915: 16). Valid Specimens. Found in abundance on September 15, 1836 in Tiergarten, Berlin, Germany. An alate (1532) was collected and mounted on a point. Another alate (specimen 1741) collected from Forstgarten, Braunschweig, Germany on October 20, 1836 and pinned. Six additional specimens and an elm gall are also present. Four of these are card-mounted together on a single pin with a white, handwritten label that reads “Blutlause Schizoneura lanigera ”. Next to these but left of Hartig’s standard label for Schizoneura lanigera [= Eriosoma lanigerum] (Hausmann, 1802), are two specimens pointed on separate pins. The first of these (1039) was collected July 17, 1833 from an elm gall. Hartig refers to this as “ Chermes ” in his journal entry. The second pin and the gall are unlabelled. Remarks. Specimens 1532 and 1741 are larger in size compared to the remaining specimens, and unlike the latter, or at least specimen 1039, were not clearly associated with elm at the time of collection.Also, while the wings of specimen 1532 are disfigured, those of specimen 1741 have venation that is inconsistent with Eriosoma lanuginosum (Hartig, 1839). Its forewings have unbranched medial veins and its hindwings have transverse veins that arise very close together and do not resemble Hartig’s own illustrations (Hartig 1841, Fig. 24). Instead, it appears to be a species of Prociphilus. Thus, these two specimens may not correspond to the Schizoneura lanuginosa Hartig, 1839 type specimens. Whether the six additional specimens belong to Hartig’s S. lanuginosa series or to his S. lanigera is to be determined. Their order within the Schmitt box suggests the former despite the handwritten S. lanigera label. At least one of these (1039) was collected from elm, the host of E. lanuginosa, and the gall pinned nearest to this specimen resembles an E. lanuginosa gall. If they instead correspond to Hartig’s S. lanigera series, the host record does not agree since this species has not been recorded from elm in Europe and Hartig (1841) only listed apple as its host.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".