MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6931152098 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5223071

Perilampus ardens Yoo and Darling 2021, n. sp.

2021· article· en· W6931152098 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRadioactive contamination and transfer
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIridescenceHolotypePedicelCrestRidgeSternum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perilampus ardens Yoo and Darling n. sp. Figures 2A‒C, 3A, 3B, Appendix 1 Material examined. Holotype. “ Yemen: Al Hudaydah, Zabid, 14°11'0"N, 43°18'0"E, Oct 2001, A van Harten; I Al Futayni, Light trap ”, “Digital Image Voucher 2019, Royal Ontario Museum”. The holotype is point-mounted (Female: ROME159196, ROME). Paratype. Yemen: Abyan, Al Kowd, 13°5'0"N, 45°22'0"E: Jul-Sep 2001, A van Harten; S Al Haruri, Malaise trap (1 female: ROME159194 - EAD). Etymology. The specific epithet ardens, Latin for fiery, is a reference to the red and yellow iridescent coloration on margin of the tubercle on the mesoscutum. Description. Female. Length: approximately 2‒2.5 mm (HT 2.5 mm). Color: iridescent blue-green, metasoma brown with strong blue-green reflections; raised smooth scale on mesoscutum with bright red and yellow reflections; dorsellum iridescent blue-green. Legs: coxae brown with green reflections, pro- and mesofemora and tibiae brown to yellow, lighter distad and on inner surfaces, hind femora brown with weak blue-green reflections, tarsi brown. Antennae: scape brown with iridescence, pedicel brown, flagellum yellow. Head (Figs 2B, 2C, 3A): in frontal view transverse, wider than high, HW/HH approximately 1.3, sparsely setose to smooth; in dorsal view weakly transverse, width slightly greater than twice length, HW/HL 2.1‒2.2; slightly wider than pronotum, HW/PW approximately 1.1‒1.2. Frontal carina: absent. Scrobal cavity (Fig. 2B): shallow; with weakly swollen ridge with wrinkles originating from between median and lateral ocelli extended towards eye margin. Ocelli: large; forming a wide triangle, POL about twice distance between posterior and anterior ocelli; POL at least twice OOL. Vertex: rounded behind; ocellar margins weakly foveate, interocellar region with costulae recurved towards the anterior ocellus; occiput with median furrow extended along midline of vertex (Fig. 2B, arrow), with costulae. Outer orbits: smooth, strong costulae behind. Inner orbits: in lateral view, nearly parallel to inner eye margin; weakly foveate. Malar space: short, about 0.2× eye height, MS/EH approximately 0.2; malar sulcus distinct; with very shallow piliferous punctures. Clypeus (Fig. 2C): strongly transverse, much wider than high, CW/ CH 2.1‒2.2, trapezoidal, lateral sulci weak and straight, strongly divergent; epistomal sulcus straight or weakly concave, deeper and more distinct than lateral sulci, only slightly extended ventrad, lower margin weakly convex. Supraclypeal area: subquadrate. Antenna: scape length approximately 0.6× EH; anellus subquadrate, length approximately 0.3× PL; F1 subquadrate, shorter or subequal in length to pedicel, F1L/PL approximately 0.6‒0.9, F2 subquadrate, F3‒F7 transverse; clava 4-segmented, with distinct terminal button. Mesosoma (Figs 2A, 3A, 3B): length about 1.1× maximum width. Pronotum in dorsal view: short, about 0.25× length of mesoscutum, PN/MSC 0.2‒0.3; slightly shorter along midline, 0.7‒0.8× length laterad; anterior margin rounded; with flange on pronotal panel at the level of mesothoracic spiracle. Lateral panel of pronotum (Fig. 3B): narrower than prepectus, LPP/PPT approximately 0.6; flat, with 2 rows of punctures with narrow interspaces, vantrad with narrow coriarious patch; anterior margin rounded; posterior margin ventrad nearly flat, with row of alveolae. Prepectus: broad; differentiated from pronotum, with distinct suture; ventral strap short (Fig. 3B, arrow), without row of alveolae; central area smooth, with foveae along dorsal and posterior margins. Femoral depression: weakly rugose, with foveae. Midlobe of mesoscutum (Fig. 3A): with raised scale-like tubercle (Fig. 3A, arrow); punctures angulate, with narrow interspaces. Lateral lobe of mesoscutum: weakly rugulose dorsad; rugulose-punctate laterad. Scutellum (Fig. 3A): about as long as mesoscutum, SC/MSC approximately 1.1; posterior margin smoothly rounded; with angulate punctures and narrow interspaces. Axilla: punctate dorsad, imbricate below. Axillula: wide triangular lobe, as long as width at base, smooth. Propodeum: length along midline about 0.3× width of propodeum; submedian area shagreened to smooth, with weak groove along median carina; alveolate-rugose laterad; without distinct lateral plicae, delimited ventrad by plicae, dorsad by transverse band of foveae; propodeal spiracle margin reticulate ventrad; nucha rugulose. Fore wing (Fig. 2A): hyaline, with yellow venations; postmarginal vein long, 0.8‒0.9× length of marginal vein, approximately twice length of stigmal vein; stigmal vein rounded without uncus. Metasoma (Fig. 3A): petiole short and straplike, smooth, without raised scale; Gt2 smooth, posterior margin concave; Gt3 smooth. Male: Unknown. Diagnosis. Perilampus ardens can be distinguished from P. awbalus and P. seyrigi, by the following: transverse clypeus (Fig. 2C), green-blue body coloration (Figs 2A, 3A), vertex rounded behind (Fig. 2B), occiput with furrow extended along midline of vertex (Fig. 2B, arrow), higher scale-like tubercle on the midlobe of mesoscutum (Fig. 3A, arrow), narrower pronotum (Fig. 3B), and smooth Gt3 (Fig. 3A). Perilampus ardens is morphologically similar to P. auratus but can be distinguished by the convex clypeal margin (Fig. 2C), red and yellow iridescent margin of the scale on the mesoscutum (Fig. 3A) and the wrinkled edge of scrobal cavity (Fig. 2B). See also Appendix 1, P. auratus and P. seyrigi.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0770.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicRadioactive contamination and transferFrench-language works237,207