Pseudohemihyalea ambigua Schmidt 2009, comb. n.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pseudohemihyalea ambigua (Strecker), comb. n. Figs. 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 25 Halisidota ambigua Strecker, 1878: 274, pl. 9, fig. 7. Seirarctia bolteri H. Edwards, 1885: 121. Type material. Halisidota ambigua: Male holotype [FMNH], not examined. Type locality: “ Colorado [USA].” The male holotype is a badly damaged specimen with the abdomen, ventral thorax and head missing, although the wings are mostly intact, with the apex of the right forewing missing (J. Rawlins, pers. comm.). Seirarctia bolteri: Holotype [unknown], not examined. Type locality: “Las Vegas, N[ew]. Mex[ico]., 7000 feet [USA].” The sex of the holotype is not indicated in the original description; the type is not among the Edwards type material in the AMNH (B. Vincent, pers. comm.). Given the distinctive original description and absence of species similar to P. ambigua in the USA, bolteri is retained as a junior synonym of ambigua. Diagnosis. Pseudohemihyalea ambigua is very similar to P. syracosia externally, but the two can usually be separated without dissection by the slightly larger size, broader forewing striae (Figs. 1 and 2) and more northerly distribution (Fig. 25) of P. ambigua. Internally, both the saccular process (cf. Figs. 6 and 7) and uncus (cf. Figs. 11 and 12) are shorter and wider compared to P. syracosia (mean length to width ratio of uncus 1.9 in P. ambigua, 2.4 in P. syracosia). The coecum of the aedeagus is longer and more conical in P. ambigua (cf. Figs. 16 and 17). In females, the antevaginal plate is less flared laterally with a shallower distal indentation compared to P. syracosia (cf. Figs. 21 and 23). Biology and distribution. Collection dates indicate the peak flight is in July, with extreme dates ranging from mid June to early August, presumably representing a single annual brood. Pseudohemihyalea ambigua is the most widespread of the ambigua - group, occurring from southern Wyoming (Ferguson et al. 2000) to Durango, Mexico (Fig. 25). Ferguson et al. (2000) show P. ambigua as occurring in Tamaulipas, Mexico, but no specimens from Tamaulipas could be located and their record may refer to another species, possibly P. potosi.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".