Anthelephila strigosa Kejval & Mz & Ch- 2018, stat. nov.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthelephila strigosa (Heberdey, 1934) stat. nov. (Figs 26–32) Formicomus maindroni strigosus Heberdey, 1934: 6, Fig. 203. Type locality. India, Karnataka, Coorg district, Fraserpet. Type material. LECTOTYPE (hereby designated):, ‘ Fraserpet Coorg. [p] // F. R. I. Sandal Insect Survey [p] // male sex-mark [p] // 13.II.30 [p+h] // 1197 [p; number of slide] // TYPE [p; red label] // coll. Heberdey [p] // Formicomus strigosus Hbdy. Dr. R. F. Heberdey [p+h] // s. strigosus nov. [h; ochraceous label, black frame]’ (NHMW). PARALECTOTYPES: INDIA: KARNATAKA: 1, same data, except: ‘10.II.30 // 1186’ and lacking the last label (NHMW). TAMIL NADU: 1, ‘Jawalagiri North Salem. [p] // F. R. I. Sandal Insect Survey [p] // male sex-mark [p] // 1.IV.30 [p+h] // 1183 [p; number of slide] // TYPE [p; red label] // coll. Heberdey [p] // Formicomus strigosus Hbdy. Dr. R. F. Heberdey [p+h]’ (NHMW); 1 ♀, ‘Daverbetta, North Salem [p] // F.R.I. Sandal Insect Survey [p] // coll. Heberdey [p] // Formicomus strigosus Hbdy. Dr. R.F. Heberdey [p+h]’ (NHMW). Additional material. SRI LANKA: SOUTHERN PROVINCE: 1, Hambantota env., 26.–30.vi.2003, O. Mehl lgt. (ZKDC). Variation. Body length (♀) 3.1–4.2 mm. Fringed setae on margin of profemoral process thin and rather inconspicuous (India) to coarse (Sri Lanka). The single male from Jawalagiri is moderately aberrant in male characters, having more distinctly widened protibiae (median margin clearly sinuous), and slight tuft/fringe of longer setae at base of prongs laterally. Differential diagnosis. Anthelephila strigosa is nearly identical with A. maindroni, differing only in several details of male characters: the profemoral process with a distinct setose fringe (Fig. 26, see Variation); protibiae with a slightly sinuous median margin, that is somewhat narrowed distally, the lobule on the inner margin is more prominent; the median process of sternum VII is shorter, projecting at the posterior margin of the sternum, being wider in ventral view, its apical margin is at most somewhat uneven (not distinctly denticulate, Figs 27, 28); tergum VII is at most slightly emarginate apically (Fig. 29); the paired prongs of the sternum are somewhat wider, being moderately arcuate in lateral view, lacking the laterobasal bunch of setae and subapical denticle (Fig. 30). Distribution. India (Karnataka, Tamil Nadu), Sri Lanka. Remarks. HEBERDEY (1934) described Formicomus maindroni strigosus from a series of specimens collected at the localities Fraserpet, Jawalagiri and Daverbetta. It is regarded herein as a separate species, very close to Anthelephila maindroni. However, further material from more localities is needed to confirm this status. A lectotype is designated with respect to the different origins of the syntypes (three distant localities), and the differences mentioned above for the male specimen from Jawalagiri. All three male syntypes from NHMW were dissected, with parts of the abdomen mounted on microscope slides in Canada balsam by R. F. Heberdey. In all cases, Heberdey did not separate sternum and tergum VIII, and consequently published (HEBERDEY 1934) a confusing drawing of the whole segment in ventral view. For these reasons, only a male from Sri Lanka was used for illustration of the male characters. The record of Formicomus maindroni strigosus from Kottur (HEBERDEY 1934: 3) is probably based on the type specimens of Anthelephila semistrigosa sp. nov., which is described above.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.010 |
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".