Bibliographic record
Abstract
Callinectes marginatus (A. Milne-Edwards, 1861) (Figs. 16D–E) Neptunus marginatus A. Milne-Edwards, 1861: 318, pl. 30, fig. 2 [type-locality: Gabon; types in MNHN]. Callinectes larvatus Ordway, 1863: 573. Callinectes diacanthus var. africanus A. Milne-Edwards, 1879: 229; A. Milne-Edwards & Bouvier 1900: 71. Callinectes marginatus.— Rathbun 1897: 23; 1900: 291; 1901: 48; 1921: 395, fig. 2, pl. 19, fig. 1, pl. 20; 1930: 123, figs. 15e, 16d, 17d, 18c, pl. 53; 1933: 49; 1936: 383; Chace 1956: 154; Chace & Hobbs 1969: 131, fig. 37d; Monod 1956: 208, figs. 238, 239; Williams 1974: 722, figs. 3, 18a, 20a, 22b, 27; Keith 1985: 261, fig. 6D; Ng et al. 2008: 150; Poupin 2018: 207; Mantelatto et al. 2020: 63; Jarquín-González et al. 2022: 6, tab. 2, 8, fig. 2. Callinectes humphreyi Jones, 1968: 187. Distribution. Western and Eastern Atlantic. Western Atlantic: USA (Virginia to Florida), Bermuda, Jamaica, Gulf of Mexico, St. Thomas, St. Martin, St. Croix, St. Barthélemy, Barbuda, Antigua, Guadeloupe, Dominica, Martinique, St. Lucia, Barbados, St. Vincent, Tobago, Trinidad, Isla de Margarita, Isla de Cubagua, Los Roques, Tortuga, Bonaire, Curaçao, Aruba, and Brazil; Eastern Atlantic: Cape Verde Islands, Senegal to central Angola (Rathbun 1897; Poupin 2018; Mantelatto et al. 2020; present study). Material examined. Barbados, Brandons, St. Michael, subtidal, 13°06’59.88”N, 59°037’44.52”W, 4 Ô (juv.) CW: 22.8, 20.4, 16.1, 15.7 (BLSZ 128). Drill Hall, St. Michael, nearshore rubble, 13°04’36.30”N, 59°36’26.63”W, 7 Ô, 1 ♀ (juv.) CW: 67.7, 63.8, 49.2, 54.4 47.6, 46.2, 56.0, 59.6 mm (BLSZ 058). Idem, 1 juv., CW: 20.0 mm (BLSZ 230). Coconut Court, Christ Church, nearshore rubble, 13°04’31.59”N, 59°036’13.78”W, 1 ♀ CW: 81.8 mm (BLSZ 057). Remarks. This is the first record of Callinectes marginatus from Barbados; caught by hand in nearshore rubble at low tide and in crab traps placed on sandy bottoms (~ 4m deep) on the west and south coasts of Barbados. This species is very abundant in nearshore rubble habitats on the south coast. Jones (1968b: 187) described a new species, Callinectes humphreyi Jones 1968, which he listed as endemic to Barbados. His description of this presumed new species, however, is based on the colour (white) of juvenile specimens. Williams (1974: 739) synonymized Callinectes humphreyi with Callinectes ornatus Ordway, 1863. According to Williams (1974: 741), Jones had indicated that the type specimen of Callinectes humphreyi was lost by accident in 1969 and therefore could not be examined. Given Jones’ (1968b) minimal description of Callinectes humphreyi and stated similarity to C. ornatus, Williams (1974) assumed that C. humphreyi was a juvenile colour variety of Callinectes ornatus. This study collected one juvenile specimen of Callinectes marginatus (Fig. 16E), which has the same colour (white) as the presumed new species (Callinectes humphreyi) described by Jones (1968b: 187). Given this, we suggest that the synonym Callinectes humphreyi is in fact based on a juvenile of Callinectes marginatus instead of Callinectes ornatus. Callinectes marginatus can be identified by four teeth on the frontal margin of carapace, median pair greatly reduced, lateral pair triangular shaped, and short first gonopods in males, which reaches about mid-length of thoracic sternite VII (Williams 1974).
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.025 |
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".