MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6950444805 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.6206859

Ceraeochrysa placita Banks 1908

2010· article· en· W6950444805 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFossil Insects in Amber
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncertae sedisSynonym (taxonomy)GenusKey (lock)Type (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ceraeochrysa placita (Banks, 1908), genus incertae sedis Chrysopa placita Banks, 1908: 259 [MCZ, Lectotype]. Ceraeochrysa placita (Banks). First combination in Ceraeochrysa by Adams (1982: 73). Removed from Ceraeochrysa by Tauber (2003: 484). Combination reinstated by Freitas et al. (2009: 568). We consider the generic placement uncertain and refer to the species as Ceraeochrysa placita (Banks), genus incertae sedis. Chrysopa forreri Navás, 1913 –14 [1914]: 97 [Syntype, The Natural History Museum, London (BMNH)]. Junior subjective synonym of Cer. placita by Adams (1982: 73). Here, recognized as a junior subjective synonym of Ceraeochrysa intacta (Navás) (see below). Chrysopa intacta Navás, 1912: 199 [Neotype, Canadian National Collection, Ottawa, (CNC)]. Junior subjective synonym of Cer. placita by Garland (1985a: 137). Here, recognized as a valid species currently included in Ceraeochrysa (see below). Chrysopodes (Neosuarius) placitus (= placita) (Banks). First combination in Chrysopodes (Neosuarius) by Tauber (2003: 484). Removed from Chrysopodes by Freitas et al. (2009: 568). Generic and subgeneric association with Chrysopodes (Neosuarius) considered uncertain by Tauber (2010: 12). The species was also referred to as Oviedus placitus (Banks) in an unpublished thesis (Garland 1982; see Garland & Kevan 2007: 59). Background: Freitas et al. (2009: 568) recognized that the species name " placita " had commonly been used in the literature and on museum specimens to refer to two species. Thus, they redescribed Ceraeochrysa placita (Banks) and restricted the usage of the name. Also, they described the new species Ceraeochrysa chiricahuae Freitas and Penny to refer to the species that had not previously been differentiated from Cer. placita (Freitas et al. 2009: 594). There are significant differences between the Chrysopa placita Banks syntypes and the majority of specimens that previously had been identified as C. placita or Cer. placita; thus we concur that the two should be treated as separate species [see C e raeochrysa intacta (Navás), genus incertae sedis below]. We also agree with Freitas et al. (2009) that the name Cer. placita refers to the less common species that currently is known only from western USA. However, several taxonomic problems presently surround the two species. As a first step in stabilizing the situation, it is important to designate a lectotype for Chrysopa placita. Types: In his original description of C. placita, Banks (1908: 259) mentioned specimens from two localities (Clear Creek, and Chimney Gulch, Golden, Colorado); he did not designate a holotype or indicate the number of specimens in the type series. Five specimens that appear to be syntypes are in the MCZ (examined, CAT); one of these (a male) has a Banks “ type ” label, is recognized as the primary type on the MCZ database, and was referred to as the lectotype by Freitas et al. (2009: 569). We concur with this lectotype assignment, and we consider it important for stabilization of the nomenclature concerned with Cer. placita and the species with which it has been confused. The labels on the lectotype read: (1) “Oslar / Chimney Gulch / Golden, Colo. / 7-20-07 ”; (2) “Collection / N. Banks”; (3) “ type ” [red (faded), Banks’ hand]; (4) “ Type / 11337” [red, printed & Banks’ hand]; (4) “ Chrysopa / placita / Bks type [white, red border, Banks’ hand]; (6) “Jan-July 2003 / MCZ Image / Database”; (7) LECTOTYPE / Chrysopa placita / Banks 1908; det. / C. Tauber & O. Flint ’10” [red]. We have labeled the other four specimens (one male, three females) as paralectotypes. The three female specimens bear labels (1) and (2) identical to those above; each also has a third label reading “ placita ” [Banks’ hand]; one has a fourth label with “ Chrysopa placita B” [Banks’ hand]. The male paralectotype has labels reading: (1) “Oslar / Clear Creek / Colo.”; (2) “Collection / N. Banks”; (3) “ placita ” [probably P. A. Adams’ hand]; (4) “MCZ / Museum of / Comparative / Zoology”. Each has a label that reads: PARALECTOTYPE / Chrysopa placita / Banks 1908; det. / C. Tauber & O. Flint ’10” [red]. We confirmed that all of the paralectotypes are conspecific with the lectotype. Conclusion: The “express statement of the taxonomic purpose” above, now fulfills the requirements for designating the C. placita lectotype (Article 74.7 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature). Also, it should be noted for Cer. placita that the branches of the Radial sector (especially the basal branches) of both the fore and hind wings are sinuate; in Freitas et al. (2009) this condition is described and illustrated only for Cer. chiricahuae (= intacta here).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicFossil Insects in AmberFrench-language works237,207