Lasioglossum (Dialictus) tegulare Robertson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lasioglossum (Dialictus) tegulare (Robertson) Halictus tegularis Robertson, 1890: 318. Ƥ 3. Holotype. Ƥ USA, Connecticut, N. Haven, 6 June 1878, (W.H. Patton); [ANSP: 4254] designated herein. Examined. Taxonomy. Robertson, 1902b: Chloralictus tegularis, p. 248 (key); Viereck, 1916: Halictus (Chloralictus) tegularis, p. 706 (key); Michener, 1951: Lasioglossum (Chloralictus) tegulare, p. 1118 (catalogue) Mitchell, 1960: Dialictus tegularis Ƥ3, p. 423 (redescription, synonymy); Krombein, 1967: Lasioglossum (Dialictus) tegulare, p. 466 (catalogue); Dialictus tegularis, p. 1972 (catalogue); Moure & Hurd, 1987: Dialictus tegularis, p. 134 (catalogue); Gibbs, 2009a: Lasioglossum (Dialictus) tegulare Ƥ3, p. 13 (redescription, tax. status); Gibbs, 2010b: Lasioglossum (Dialictus) tegulare Ƥ3, p. 323 (redescription, key). Diagnosis. Female L. tegulare can be recognised by the following diagnostic combination: tegula enlarged, strongly punctate with distinct posterior angle (Fig. 7 A); head relatively wide (length/width ratio = 0.94–0.97); head and mesosoma greenish; mesepisternum with strong microsculpture between punctures; and inner metatibial spur with 3–4 branches (excluding apex of rachis). Male L. tegulare also have an enlarged tegula and can be distinguished from similar species by dense punctures on T2 immediately basal of premarginal line (Fig. 38 A) and sparse facial tomentum, except on lower paraocular area. They are most similar to L. ellisiae and L. puteulanum. Male L. ellisiae have sparse punctures on T2 immediately basal of premarginal line (Fig. 38 B). Male L. puteulanum have more tomentum distributed outside of lower paraocular area. Range. Ontario south to Georgia. USA: CT, DC, GA, KY, MA, MD, MO, NC, NE, NJ, NY, RI, SC, TN, VA, VT, WV. CANADA: ON. DNA Barcode. Available. Multiple sequences. Comments. Common. The taxonomic limits of this species were recently revised (Gibbs 2009a). The specimen indicated above is herein designated as the lectotype to ensure stability of the name.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".