Empis (Enoplempis) subaeripes Sinclair, Brooks & Cumming, 2025, sp. nov.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empis (Enoplempis) subaeripes sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: 22E35611-665C-4111-98EA-A1B256C6A069 (Figs 250, 273, 274, 281) Type material. HOLOTYPE ♂, labelled: “USA: California / Monterey Co., Carmel / Valley, Hastings Nat./ History Pres. [36°22′N 121°33′W], 7-8 Mar/ 1996 Paul H. Arnaud Jr. ”; “ HOLOTYPE / Empis (Enoplempis) / subaeripes Sinclair,/ Brooks & Cumming [red label]” (USNM). PARATYPES: USA. California: Same data as holotype (1♂, USNM). Diagnosis. This species is distinguished from other species of the E. (En.) valentis species group by the occiput bearing a pair of irregular rows of strong setae, four marginal scutellar setae, halter with pale knob, male hind femur with inner basal knob on anteroventral digitiform process, bearing apical brush of thick black setae (Fig. 273), and wing length less than 7 mm. Description. Wing length 5.5 mm. Male. Similar to E. (En.) aeripes, except as follows: head with occiput bearing pair of irregular rows of strong setae, similar in size to ocellar setae. Postpedicel long and tapered, 4× longer than basal width; stylus 1.5× longer than basal width of postpedicel. Palpus orange brown. Thorax with postpronotum with 1 long seta and some 4–5 pairs of shorter, dark setae. Scutum with dc well developed, more than twice length of acr; 2 posterior npl, with 1 shorter anterior npl. Scutellum with 2 pairs of strong sctl, widely separated medially. Hind femur with anteroventral process digitiform longer than apical width of femur, with tuft of black apical setae and several setae on stalk, with basal lobe with apical brush of black, thick setae; one knob-like lobe medial to digitiform anteroventral process, straight, parallel-sided with several lateral setae; one very short posteroventral swelling proximal to preapical row of 4 flattened, black posterior setae; preapical anterior seta strong, slightly longer than width of femur (Figs 273, 274). Hind tibia with stout anteroventral digitiform process on basal quarter, slightly proximal to process of femur (when legs folded), with appressed black marginal setae; posteroventrally with broad, rounded process, with short marginal setae and tuft of long, subapical setae, subequal to length of process (Figs 273, 274). Wing with R 5 ending posterior to wing tip. Halter pale, yellowish brown. Abdomen without glossy posterior margin of tergites. Terminalia (Fig. 281): dark brown. Cercus short, rectangular; dorsal margin with distinct notch at mid-length, posteriorly with distinct, dorsal knob-like projection; setae shorter than width of cercus. Subepandrium without process or setae. Epandrial lamella oval, higher than long; posterior margin with very short, knob-like projection; posterior margin with short setae. Hypandrium short, truncate, slightly prolonged laterally; without setae. Phallus with basal half strongly expanded; tapered apically, mostly straight apically; apex not emerging beyond epandrium; lateral face of phallus with thickened spicules; ejaculatory apodeme more than half-length of epandrium, Y-shaped, with ventrally positioned lateral apodemes. Female. Unknown. Geographical distribution and seasonal occurrence (Fig. 250). Empis (En.) subaeripes sp. nov. is only known from March at the type locality in Monterey County, California. Etymology. The species name is in reference to the similarity of this species with E. (En.) aeripes. Nuptial gift presentation. Form unknown.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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".