Anaphes (Anaphes) fuscipennis Haliday 1833
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anaphes (Anaphes) fuscipennis Haliday, 1833 Anaphes fuscipennis Haliday, 1833b: 346. Lectotype ♀ (NMID), designated by Graham, 1982: 207. TL: England or Ireland. Curtis, 1837: 134 (list) [P]; Blanchard, 1840: 293 (description) [P]; Walker, 1846: 51 (description, distribution) [P]; Dalla Torre, 1898: 424 (catalogue) [P]; Enock, 1914: 46 (list) [P]; Gahan, 1949: 204 (type of genus discussion); Varis, 1972: 22 (percent parasitism) [P]; Bilewicz-Pawinska,1983: (host, Poland) [P]; Viggiani & Jesu: 1988: 1021 (biocontrol); Coutinot & Hoelmer, 1999: 645 (host) [P] [misidentification]; Huber, 1992: 36 (key), 38 (description, distribution, introduction history); Conti et al., 1994: 523 (percent parasitism) [P]; Pagliano & Navone, 1995: 35 (list) [P]; Ahmed, 1996: 61 (host, Saudi Arabia) [P]; Radcliffe & Flanders, 1998: 234 (biological control); Gijswijt, 2003: 49 (list) [P]; Salerno et al., 2007: 422 (oviposition factors) [P] [misidentification; probably refers to A. brevis Walker]; Williams et al., 2008: 1191 (response to plant volatiles); Pricop, 2009b: 124 (distribution) [P]; Pricop, 2009c: 20 (distribution) [P]; Pintureau, 2012: 34 (European list) [P]; ICZN, 2017, 122 (designated as type species of Anaphes); Dale-Skey et al., 2016: 232 (checklist) [P]. Anaphes (Anaphes) fuscipennis: Bouček & Graham, 1978: 110 (checklist) [P]; Viggiani, 1994: 476 (male genitalia), 479 (key) [P]; Pricop, 2009a: 81 (distribution) [P]; Huber & Thuróczy, 2018: 26 (catalogue). Anaphes pratensis Foerster, 1847: 211. Lectotype ♀ (NHMW), designated by Huber, 1992: 39. TL: Unknown. Presumably Germany. Synonymy by Graham, 1982: 206. Dalla Torre, 1898: 424 (catalogue) [P]; Lameere, 1907: 247 (habitat) [P]; Schmiedeknecht, 1909: 499 (list) [P]; Girault, 1911 [89]: 135 (description [first Nearctic record]); Girault, 1911 [91]: 188 (description); Girault, 1911 [95]: 364, 368 (description); Girault, 1912 [107]: 88 (description); Girault, 1912 [112]: 299 (addition to North American list); Girault, 1914 [219]: 110 (releases from Italy into USA, description); Britton, 1920: 323 (distribution); Howard, 1927: 14 (importations from Europe on small scale); Christie, 1929: 43 (releases in Indiana); Pack & Fife, 1930: 30 (percent parasitism, sex ratio); Couturier, 1935: 92 (host?) [P]; Hamlin et al., 1949: 41 (mention), 58 (host, percent parasitism); Thompson, 1958: 568 (host catalogue) [P]; Mailloux & Pilon, 1975: 111 (establishment in USA); Clausen, 1978: 267 (biological control); Burks, 1979: 1029 (catalogue); Aeschlimann, 1980: 145 (host) [P]; Schaber, 1981: 169 (recovery in North America, confusion with luna); Viggiani & Jesu, 1988: 1021 (synonym). Mymar pratensis: Peck, 1951: 416 (generic transfer, catalogue); Peck, 1963: 40 (catalogue). Mymar pratensis [in part]: Clausen, 1956: 116 (biological control). Anaphes sp.: Webster, 1912: 34 (illustration), 35 (importation from Italy to Utah). Anaphes? pratensis: Girault, 1914 [187]: 87 (host) [P]. Anophes [sic] pratensis: Mailloux & Pilon, 1970: 607 (introduction, spread, host). Anaphes (Anaphes) pratensis: Bakkendorf, 1964: 4 (unidentified egg in host plant) [P]; Yoshimoto, 1990: 52 (list). Anaphes capitulatus (Soyka, 1949: 341). Holotype ♀ (NHMW). TL: Netherlands, Valkenburg. Synonymy by Huber, 1992: 38. Anaphes filicornis (Soyka, 1949: 343). Holotype ♀ (NHMW). TL: Netherlands, Valkenburg. Synonymy by Huber, 1992: 38. Anaphes maculatus (Soyka, 1949: 345). Holotype ♀ (NHMW). TL: Netherlands, Valkenburg. Synonymy by Huber, 1992: 38. Anaphes neopratensis (Soyka, 1946b: 182). Holotype ♀ (NHMW). TL: Austria, Hundsheim, Spitzerberg. Synonymy by Huber, 1992: 38. Anaphes stammeri (Soyka, 1949: 349). Holotype ♀ (NHMW). TL: Poland, Wrocław [as Breslau]. Synonymy by Huber, 1992: 38. Nearctic hosts. Curculionidae: H. nigrirostris (Fabricius), Hypera postica (Gyllenhal), H. punctata (Fabricius) Sitona crinita Herbst. Distribution. Canada: BC, NL, NS, ON, QC. USA: CT, FL, OH, WI, VA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.008 |
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.
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".