Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microphorella vespera sp. nov. (Figs 19–21, 23) urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: A769BA44-14E6-4FEA-B0A0-536992476C23 Type material. HOLOTYPE ♂ labelled: “USA: CA: Del Norte Co. / West Fork of Patrick Crk. / N41°55ʹ03ʺ W123°51ʹ28ʺ / 3.VI.2009, S.E. Brooks ”; “ HOLOTYPE / Microphorella vespera / Cumming & Brooks” [red label] (CNC). PARATYPES: USA: California: Same data as holotype (2♂, 2♀, CNC); same data as holotype except, J.M. Cumming (1♂, CNC); same data as holotype except, J.M. Cumming, CNC DIPTERA 105212, 105214 (2♂, CNC); same data as holotype except, 31.v.2009, J.M. Cumming (1♂, 1♀, CNC); same data as holotype except, 31.v–3.vi.2009, YPT, J.M. Cumming & S.E. Brooks (2♂, 1♀, CNC); ca 6.5 mi NE Gasquet nr Cold Spring Mountain, N 41°52ʹ15ʺ W 123°53ʹ21ʺ, S.E. Brooks, CNC DIPTERA 105257 (1♀, CNC); same data except, J.M. Cumming, CNC DIPTERA 105213 (1♂, CNC). Oregon: Benton County: North Fork Alsea R., nr. fish hatchery, N 44°25ʹ14.0ʺ W 123°33ʹ47.8ʺ, 115 m, 5.vii.2014, S.E. Brooks, CNC 487208 (1♀, CNC, see “Remarks”). Diagnosis. Males of M. vespera sp. nov. are distinguished from those of M. breviradia sp. nov. and M. macdonaldi sp. nov. by the following combination of features: narrow face (similar to Fig. 2); right dorsal surstylar lobe without basiventral projection(s) (Fig. 20); phallus short, stout and bifid (Fig. 19). Females of M. vespera sp. nov. appear to be indistinguishable from those of M. breviradia sp. nov. and M. macdonaldi sp. nov. Description. Male (Figs 19–21): Body length 1.25–1.57 mm, wing length 1.38–1.41 mm. Similar to M. breviradia sp. nov. except as follows: Head: Slightly broader than high in anterior view, not wider in occasional specimens. Antenna with postpedicel conical and gradually tapered distally; arista-like stylus slightly shorter, 0.8–1.1X length of postpedicel. Thorax: Usually 6 dorsocentrals (one male paratype apparently with 5). Legs: Midleg: Tarsus subequal in length to tibia. Hindleg: Femur with series of ventral setae at most as long as femur width; tibia straight, without erect setae; tarsus slightly shorter than tibia (>0.7X tibia length). Wing: R 1 terminating near midpoint of wing. Abdomen: Hypopygium (Figs 19–21): Left ventral epandrial process narrowed preapically with apex expanded and rounded, dorsal margin with pair of small setae in basal half. Right epandrial lamella with anterior end broadly rounded and weakly projected; posterior end with broad ventral conical projection. Dorsal lobe of right surstylus with dorsoapical margin broadly pointed with several strong marginal setae, ventral margin broadly rounded, without basiventral projections. Left postgonite lobe narrow basally, apical half enlarged with broad dorsal projection bearing a few small setae. Phallus stout and bifid, bearing thick process ventrally. Hypoproct with left lobe expanded basally, both lobes with apical setae. Left cercus slightly broadened basally, distal portion strongly bent laterally and wrinkled, apex compressed laterally and subrectangular. Right cercus with apex slightly expanded and broadly rounded. Female: Body length 1.23–1.35 mm, wing length 1.32–1.54 mm. Similar to male except as follows: Head: Face broader, nearly twice width of anterior ocellus at narrowest point in middle. Legs: Hindleg: Femur with short indistinct setae ventrally. Abdomen: Similar to M. breviradia sp. nov. Distribution. This new species is known from the Coast Range of central Oregon and northern California, USA (Fig. 23). Etymology. From the Latin word vesper meaning west, in reference to the western Nearctic distribution of this species. Remarks. One female specimen (CNC487208) from Alsea River in Oregon, which appears morphologically identical to other specimens of M. vespera, yielded a barcode sequence with slightly greater than 2% genetic divergence (i.e., 2.67%) from the remainder of the M. vespera barcode cluster that contained both males and females from northern California (Fig. 24). Although the reason for this increase in genetic divergence is unknown, it could be due to factors such as differences in initial specimen preservation, or a lack of sampling and sequencing of specimens between both the California and Oregon geographic localities.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".