Bibliographic record
Abstract
Voluccella Fabricius, 1794: 412. Type species: Voluccella florea Fabricius, 1794 (the 1st of three originally included species), automatic as the result of Latreille’s (1810) designation of Voluccella florea Fabricius as type species for Usia Latreille, 1802, an unnecessary new replacement name for Voluccella Fabricius, 1794. Voluccella Fabricius, 1794 was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (Name No. 844) by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1957: 88) and is therefore a senior but invalid synonym of Usia Latreille (Bombyliidae). Remarks. The name Volucella Geoffroy, 1762, as originally proposed for species of Syrphidae, was cited under Musca pellucens Linnaeus, 1758 by Fabricius (1775: 773, misspelled as Voluccella; 1781: 435, as Voluccella), and under Syrphus pellucens (Linnaeus, 1758) by Fabricius (1794: 279, as Volucella; 1805: 224, as Voluccella). Fabricius (1794: 412) deliberately proposed a different usage of the name Voluccella for three species of the family Bombyliidae, and this usage qualifies as a new available name. Two original spellings of the name were given in Fabricius (1794): Voluccella (p. 412) and Volvicella (p. [5] of the unnumbered index). Acting as First Reviser, Fabricius (1805) selected Voluccella as the correct original spelling (Code Article 24.2.4). Fabricius (1805: 114–116) included six species of the Bombyliidae in his Voluccella. Meigen (1804) initially adopted the usage of Voluccella proposed by Fabricius, but the name was subsequently replaced by Usia Latreille. Volucella Geoffroy and Voluccella Fabricius are not homonyms because the names differ by one letter (Code Article 56.2). Evenhuis & Greathead (2003: 10–11) understood this and believed therefore that the widely used generic name Usia Latreille, 1802 in Bombyliidae, originally proposed as a replacement name for Voluccella Fabricius, 1794, was threatened as a junior synonym. These authors were aware that Voluccella Fabricius was invalid as the result of a ruling by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1957: 88) (see Evenhuis 1991: 77) but were concerned that this ruling could be challenged and potentially overturned (as allowed under Code Article 80.4) because it was based on the misinterpretation of Voluccella as a misspelling of Volucella Geoffroy (N. Evenhuis, pers. comm.). To permanently fix the priority of Usia Latreille, 1802 over Voluccella Fabricius, 1794, Evenhuis & Greathead (2003) declared the former as a nomen protectum and the latter as a nomen oblitum.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".