Bibliographic record
Abstract
Triepeolus nemoralis (Holmberg, 1886) Fig. 13B Doeringiella nemoralis Holmberg, 1886: 280 (♀). Epeolus merus Brèthes, 1909: 250 (♂). Epeolus merus – Schrottky 1913: 265 (in regional checklist). Triepeolus nemoralis – Roig-Alsina 1989: 578. — Onuferko et al. 2024: 27, figs 1f, 3b, 11, 13b (redescription). Proposed common name Nemoral triepeolus. Diagnosis The following morphological features in combination tell T. nemoralis apart from all other species of Triepeolus: the mesoscutum has a large anteromedial ovate patch of yellow tomentum, which may be sparser medially such that the patch is suggestive of ill-defined paramedian bands (Fig. 13B); the T1 basal band is arched, continuous with (and indistinguishable from) the lateral longitudinal bands, and mesally concave on each side, such that the discal patch is semicircular (Fig. 13B); T1 does not have an apical transverse band (Fig. 13B), but the apical impressed area may have ill-defined patches of pale tomentum; and T2–T4 have complete apical transverse bands of yellow tomentum (Fig. 13B). Triepeolus nemoralis most closely resembles specimens of T. alvarengai without an apical transverse band on T1 and T. mexicanus, the latter of which is known only from North and Central America, but in T. alvarengai the mesoscutum has well-defined paramedian bands and in T. mexicanus pale tomentum on the mesoscutum is restricted to the lateral and posterior margins. Males of T. nemoralis also closely resemble those of T. flavipennis without an apical transverse band on T1 and T. cameroni, which is known only from Mexico and Central America, but in the latter two species, which are not in the simplex species group, the mesoscutum has well-defined paramedian bands, in T. flavipennis the pair of anterolateral patches of pale tomentum on T1 are mesally convex, such that the discal patch forms a trapezoid or triangle with concave anterolateral sides, and in T. cameroni S3 has an apical/subapical fringe of dense, long (> 1 MOD), curved, pale setae (as opposed to only short, straight setae). This species is also very similar in overall appearance to Epeolus luteipennis, and in both species the mesoscutum has a large anteromedial patch of yellow tomentum (as opposed to well-defined paramedian bands), but both sexes of T. nemoralis can easily be told apart from any similar-looking Epeolus by their simple mandibles; in E. luteipennis and most other Epeolus spp., the mandibles each have a distinct preapical tooth. Etymology See Onuferko et al. (2024). Material examined See Onuferko et al. (2024). DNA barcoded material Unavailable. Redescription This species was recently redescribed (Onuferko et al. 2024). Distribution Northern and eastern South America (Onuferko et al. 2024: fig. 1F). Ecology Host records Unknown. Floral records See Onuferko et al. (2024). Remarks Detailed morphological and taxonomic remarks about this species are given in Onuferko et al. (2024).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".