Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anoplodactylus evelinae Marcus, 1940 Anoplodactylus (Labidodactylus) evelinae: Stock, 1954. Anoplodactylus evelinae Marcus, 1940: 55, figure 4; Hedgpeth, 1948: 232, figure 31; Fage, 1949: 27-28, figure 3; Müller and Krapp, 2009: 93-94, figure 49. Material examined: Bahia: (UFPB.PYC–170) 1 ♂ and 1 juvenile, Praia de Apuã, intertidal, 17 Apr. 2015, coll. R.A. Lucena, L.M. Falkenberg and J. Prata. Alagoas: (UFPB.PYC–128) 2 ♂ and 1 ♀, Praia de Peroba, intertidal, 13 Jun. 2014, coll. R.A. Lucena, J. Prata and J.P. de Araújo. Diagnosis: Body small. Trunk segments 3 and 4 fused. Cuticulum with small tubercles. Segments 1 and 2 with a bifurcate median-dorsal tubercle, near posterior border of segment. Proboscis robust, of similar size to segment 1, and with small ventral tubercles near median line. Abdomen small, with a rounded tubercle at base. Fingers with small teeth. Legs short and robust. All articles of legs with small median and dorsal tubercles. Cement gland opening onto femur by a median-dorsal pore. Propodus with 1 spine on heel. Main claw two-thirds length of propodus. Auxiliary claws strongly reduced. Distribution: Brazil (São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Bahia and Alagoas), Colombia, Atlantic and Pacific Panama, Anguilla, Jamaica, Belize, Mexico, USA (Florida), Congo (Marcus, 1940; Sawaya, 1949; Müller, 1993; Müller and Krapp, 2009). Depth: Up to 30 m deep. Remarks: The species is clearly distinguished from the remaining species of the genus for having some rare characters, otherwise commonly found in the genus Pycnogonum (Ström, 1762): The short dorso-median tubercles on the trunk very rare or unique to this genus, abdomen inflated and extending horizontally from trunk, very short legs, with tibia as long as wide (Stock, 1979; Child, 2004), and propodus with very pronounced heel having a robust spine (Child, 1982b). For Müller and Krapp (2009), A. evelinae is related to A. arescus du Bois-Reymond Marcus, 1959 and A. tarsalis Stock, 1968, for having a compact structure with similar tarsus and propodus. They may be distinguished by the cement gland, which in A. evelinae does not have a tubular opening. Here we record this species for the first time in the Brazilian State of Alagoas.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".