Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empria improba (Cresson, 1880) Fig. 22A-E Emphytus improbus Cresson, 1880: 11. &female;, &male;. Syntypes. Type locality: Nevada, USA. Lectotype &male; (type No. 365) designated by Smith (1979). ANSP. Tenthredo (Poecilostoma) hybrida Erichson in: Ménétriés in: Middendorff, 1851: 60-61. &female;. Syntypes (assumed). Primary homonym of Tenthredo (Tenthredo) hybrida Eversmann, 1847. Type locality: Udskoj Ostrog [Russia, Khabarovsk Krai, Udskoe]. Lectotype &female; designated by Prous et al. (2011). ZIN. syn. nov. Poecilosoma plana Jakowlew, 1891: 31. &female;. Type locality: Irkutsk, Russia. &female;. Holotype. ZIN. syn. nov. Empria itelmena Malaise, 1931b: 23. &female;, &male;. Syntypes. Type locality: Kamtschatka, E[lisowo] [Russia, Kamchatka Krai]. Lectotype &female; designated by Prous et al. (2011). NHRS. syn. nov. Empria camtschatica Forsius, 1928: 46-47. &female;. Holotype. Type locality: Russia, Kamchatka Krai, Bolsheretsk [Bolscheretsk]. MZH. syn. nov. Notes. The species boundaries between willow-feeding taxa of the <i>Empria immersa</i> group (<i>E. immersa</i>, <i>E. camtschatica</i>, <i>E. plana</i>, and <i>E. improba</i>) have proved to be difficult to elucidate (Prous et al. 2014, 2020). In Fennoscandia, two forms can commonly be found at the same time and place (Prous et al. 2014): <i>E. immersa</i> with a dark pterostigma and short antenna, and <i>E. camtschatica</i> with a pale pterostigma and long antenna. These two forms can also be distinguished by larval morphology (Fig. 22). Based on <i>ex ovo</i> rearings by M. Prous (two females from Sweden and Estonia) and <i>ex larva</i> rearings by Ponomarev (2022) of <i>E. immersa</i>, and <i>ex ovo</i> rearings by M. Prous of <i>E. camtschatica</i> (using two females from Sweden), the main difference seems to be in head coloration: <i>E. immersa</i> with an occipital fleck or stripe (Fig. 22F-M) and <i>E. camtschatica</i> with occipital and parietal stripes (Fig. 22A-E). An additional difference may be that glandubae (white conical warts) are more prominent in <i>E. immersa</i> than in <i>E. camtschatica</i>. Although based on limited specimen sampling, genome scale data (Prous et al. 2020) support <i>E. immersa</i> as a distinct species most consistently compared to the other species in the <i>E. immersa</i> group. In Fennoscandia, taxonomy is complicated by the presence of occasional specimens identifiable as <i>E. plana</i>, somewhat intermediate in morphology between <i>E. immersa</i> and <i>E. camtschatica</i> (pterostigma like <i>E. camtschatica</i>, saw intermediate). Genome scale data of one <i>E. plana</i> female from Sweden do not indicate affinity with <i>E. immersa</i>, but do show at least some affinity with <i>E. camtschatica</i> (Sweden), <i>E. improba</i> (Canada), and one other <i>E. plana</i> (Hokkaido, Japan) (see fig. 5 in Prous et al. 2020). Given the above, we synonymize <i>E. plana</i> and <i>E. camtschatica</i> with <i>E. improba</i>, because clear boundaries between these taxa cannot at present be drawn. Thus, in Europe, the specimens with dark pterostigma, short antennae and more prominent serrulae of the saw can be identified as <i>E. immersa</i>, and those with pale pterostigma, usually longer antennae, and less prominent serrulae as <i>E. improba</i> (see Prous et al. 2014). In North America, however, at least some <i>E. improba</i> specimens look externally more like <i>E. immersa</i> (dark pterostigma and metafemur), while the serrulae of the saw resemble <i>E. camtschatica</i>. Lacourt (2020) suggested that <i>E. camtschatica</i> could be a synonym of <i>E. improba</i>, but genetically these taxa are not necessarily closer to each other than they are to <i>E. plana</i> (Prous et al. 2020). If the circumscription of <i>E. improba</i> as proposed here is considered incorrect, then it remains unclear how many additional species should be recognized, and how these should be delimited. For example, in Europe the morphological distinction between <i>E. camtschatica</i> and <i>E. plana</i> is not clear, although these forms can be more reliably distinguished from <i>E. immersa</i>.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".