MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6931629763 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.6230297

Tragidion coquus Linnaeus

2008· article· en· W6931629763 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Surface and Contact Lens
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsType (biology)CapeRange (aeronautics)Type speciesOrange (colour)Type locality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tragidion coquus Linnaeus (Figs 2 E–F, 3A, 6D) Cerambyx coquus Linnaeus, 1758:393. Type locality: Canada Callidium lynceum Fabricius, 1775:191; Fabricius, 1801:344. Type locality: Cape of Good Hope. Cerambyx lynceus: Olivier, 1795:37 Lamia coquus: Fabricius, 1801:300 Callidium fulvipenne Say, 1823:414. Type locality: “Arkansa River, Arkansa”. Cerambyx (Purpuricenus) Melsheimeri Germar, 1824:502. Type locality: America spetentrionalis. Tragidion coquus: Audinet-Serville, 1834:90; LeConte, 1850:10; Leng, 1886:81; Casey, 1893:586; Beutenmüller, 1896:76; Knull, 1946:229 Tragidion fulvipenne: LeConte, 1850:10; Casey, 1893:586; Casey, 1912:323. Tragidion coquus var fulvipenne: Leng, 1886:81; Knull, 1946:229. Tragidion coquus filicorne Casey, 1912:323. Type locality: “New Mexico (Las Vegas) and Texas”. Tragidion fulvipenne nubifer Casey, 1912:323. Type locality: Texas. Tragidion fulvipenne levipes Casey, 1912:323. Type locality: “New Mexico (Las Vegas)”. Tragidion apicatum Casey, 1912:323. Type locality: Texas. Material examined: 167 specimens. We were unable to locate types for this species. Diagnosis. Throughout the eastern portions of its range, this species is distinctive in North America. It can be differentiated from most US species by the combination of entirely black antennae, feeble elytral costae, slender body form, and slender metatibiae. Outside of the US, this species resembles T. bicolor. For a discussion of the differences between these two species, see the account of T. bicolor. Tragidion coquus is the most polymorphic species in the genus. Numerous color variants of the elytra occur throughout the range of this species. These range from entirely black to bright orange, and can include two round orange or black maculae on the humeral region of the elytra. Color pattern does not seem to be correlated with sex of the individual, geography, or phenology. Hovore and Giesbert (1976) discussed a population of what they believed to be T. coquus from western Texas that exhibited characters of both T. coquus and possibly T. annulatum and T. auripenne. Of these three species, this population appears most similar to T. coquus. Males of this population can have annulated or entirely black antennae with intergrades thereof, and four or (rarely) five elytral costae. This population may represent hybridization between T. densiventre and T. coquus; T. annulatum is confined to the west coast of North America, and not found within the range of these two species. Due to the variation between four and five elytral costae, and the variation between black and annulated antennae, this species appears in three different couplets in the key to the males. In the female key, this species appears twice due to the variation in the costae, however, the antennae of all females examined has consistently been black. Distribution (Fig. 6 D). Central and eastern USA as well as southeastern Canada; west to southern New Mexico and western Texas. The putative hybrid populations occur in western Texas and eastern New Mexico. Ecology. This species is common and widespread over much of the eastern and central United States, where the larval hosts include a variety of hardwoods, especially Quercus spp. (Linsley, 1962). In Texas and New Mexico, adults of this species are commonly collected in xeric habitats without Quercus. Therefore, several widely-divergent larval hosts are utilized, at least in the southwestern portions of its range.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.009

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.207 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicOcular Surface and Contact LensFrench-language works237,207