Platypalpus granadensis Chvala 1972
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Platypalpus granadensis Chvála, 1972 Material examined. Muğla prov.: 2♂, 6♀, Muğla University campus, MT, 720 m, 37°09′42′′N, 28°22′13′′E, H. Kavak, iv.2015 (CULSP). Remarks. This species was previously known from the female holotype from Spain (Chvála 1981). Our female specimens agree exactly with the original description except the mid femur bears anterior (or slightly anterodorsal) setae, of which at least 1–2 but usually 3–4 are dark at least on apical half of the femur and also strong and dark anteroventral setae are on the apical half of the femur. In original description and illustration (Chvála 1981: 147, fig. a) these setae are not mentioned; however, B. Sinclair (Ottawa) kindly examined the female holotype and found anteroventral setae to be present, but not as strong as in our specimen (he compared the holotype with photo of our specimen). Also the anterior setae are present, but they “appear to be slender and long, not readily distinguished from finer setae” (B. Sinclair pers. comm. 2017). The postpedicel in our specimens is 1.95X longer than the stylus (mean, standard deviation = 0.22) exactly the same value as obtained by measuring Chvála ′s fig. b. However, direct measuring of holotype showed this ratio to be 1.66 (B. Sinclair, pers. comm. 2017). Genitalia are very similar to those of P. longicornis (compare Chvála 1975, figs 329–331), only left epandrial lamella is slightly concave ventrally and both cerci are more rounded apically). Platypalpus granadensis is undoubtedly closely related to P. longicornis, as already stated by Chvála (1981). Besides differences given in this paper, the mid tibial spur is distinct, rather long and flat in P. granadensis (also apparent from Chvála 1981, fig. a) which disagrees with the statement: “No apical spur on mid tibia” in original description; however, it is almost absent in P. longicornis. These are the first records for Turkey.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".