MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6962447518 · doi:10.15468/u63uva

New Records of Featherwing Beetles (Coleoptera: Ptiliidae) in North America

2003· dataset· en· W6962447518 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility · 2003
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousHolarcticChecklistFaunaDozenRare speciesTaxonomy (biology)Introduced species

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dataset contains the digitized treatments in Plazi based on the original journal article Sörensson, Mikael (2003): New Records of Featherwing Beetles (Coleoptera: Ptiliidae) in North America. The Coleopterists Bulletin 57 (4): 369-381, DOI: 10.1649/564, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/564AbstractNew continental, national, provincial and state records of 34 species of Ptiliidae reported from North America are briefly listed, 20 of which belong to Acrotrichis Motschulsky. Eight European/ Palaearctic species (Oligella foveolata (Allibert), Ptiliolum fuscum (Erichson), Ptiliola kunzei (Heer), Ptinella aptera (Guérin-Meneville), P. britannica Matthews, P. johnsoni Rutanen, Acrotrichis parva Rosskothen, A. silvatica Rosskothen) were previously not recorded on the North American continent. Fourteen species are new to Canada and 12 new to U.S.A. New or previously dubious provincial and state records are confirmed for Canada (96) and for U.S.A. (133). Acrotrichis fungi (Abdullah and Abdullah), previously established as a nomen dubium, should be removed from the Canadian list of Coleoptera. An updated checklist of North American ptiliid genera is presented. A tabulated summary of ptiliid species common to North America and either Europe or the Palaearctic is presented. Species are ordered according to their supposed origin (recent introductions or indigenous elements).Species of the beetle family Ptiliidae (Featherwing beetles) are obscure, small creatures primarily found in leaf litter and rotten organic substances all over the world. Although often common they have generally been neglected by collecting coleopterists, and larger collections of Ptiliidae are rare even among public museums.From America north of Mexico some 110 valid species (ca. 135 nominal) are known, the majority having been described more than 100 years ago (Casey, Haldeman, LeConte, Matthews, Motschulsky). The actual number of species is estimated to exceed this figure two- or even threefold. My own collection holds 160 North American species belonging to genera already described (cf. Table 1). In addition there are dozens of species which cannot be assigned to any known genus. Dybas (1978) estimated the number of species to exceed 200. Modern revisions are lacking for most genera, the exceptions primarily being H. S. Dybas’ works on Bambara Vuillet (Eurygyne Dybas) (Dybas 1966), Ptinellodes Matthews (Dybas 1978 a) and Ptiliopycna Casey (Dybas 1978 b), and Seevers’ and Dybas’ (1943) revision of the myrmecophilic genera of Cephaloplectinae. Monotypic genera (Porophila Dybas; Hydnosella Dybas; Cylindroselloides Hall, Throscoptiloides Hall) were treated by Dybas (1956, 1961) and Hall (1999). Of the taxa mentioned only Bambara occurs in the Palaearctic region.Sundt (1958) showed that most ptiliid species cannot be identified with certainty without consideration of the structure and configuration of the genitalia. He especially stressed the importance of using type specimens to establish species identities primarily based on genitalic characteristics, thereby laying an unequivocal foundation for species identification. For that reason practically all previous non-type records of American Ptiliidae cited in the literature before Seevers and Dybas (1943) cannot be uncritically accepted without thorough rechecking, which involves preparing for the genitalia and comparison with primary type specimens. In addition, works, keys and catalogues of younger age that uncritically cite older records are unreliable and thus of limited value (e.g., Arnett 1968; Poole and Gentili 1996; in part also Downie and Arnett 1996).369Table 1. Checklist of valid generic names of Ptiliidae of America north of Mexico. The genera are arranged alphabetically. Synonyms are omitted (Dilinium Casey ¼? Micridium Motschulsky; Ptiliodina Casey ¼? Pteryx Matthews; cfr. Dybas (1990); Hall (2001); Johnson (2001); Poole and Gentili (1996)).Acrotrichis Motschulsky, 1848 Paralimulodes Bruch, 1919 Actidium Matthews, 1868 Porophila Dybas, 1956 Actinopteryx Matthews, 1872 Ptenidium Erichson, 1845 Bambara Vuillet, 1911 Pteryx Matthews, 1858 Cylindrosella Barber, 1924 Ptiliola Haldeman, 1848 Cylindroselloides Hall, 1999 Ptiliolum Flach, 1888 Hydnosella Dybas, 1961 Ptiliopycna Casey, 1924 Limulodes Matthews, 1867 Ptilium Gyllenhal, 1827 Micridium Motschulsky, 1869 Ptinella Motschulsky, 1844 Millidium Motschulsky, 1855 Ptinellodes Matthews, 1872 Motschulskium Matthews, 1872 Smicrus Matthews, 1872 Nanosella Motschulsky, 1869 Suterina Dybas, 1981 Nephanes Thomson, 1859 Throscoptilium Barber, 1924 Nossidium Erichson, 1845 Throscoptiloides Hall, 1999 Oligella Motschulsky, 1869A new critically checked catalogue or checklist of North American Ptiliidae is thus needed. My own preliminary checklists of Ptiliidae of Canada and of U.S.A. have not incorporated most older records. Scanning new material reconfirmed in some instances old literature records (see list below). However, much work needs to be done before a‘ ‘clean’’ list emerges. As an example I have in preparation a revision of North, Central and South American Acrotrichis Motschulsky, the largest ptiliid genus, comprising about 20% of the total ptiliid species number in North America. The list of taxa below is a modest start and should be viewed in the light of that work.The majority of genera currently recorded from North America are of Holarctic or cosmopolitan distribution. Following Dybas (1990) and Hall (1999, 2001), also including the Cephaloplectinae (Limulodinae), only seven out of 29 ptiliid genera seem restricted to North America (cfr. Table 1). Five of these belong to the Nanosellini. These figures to a large extent reflect the influence of previous works by European nineteenth century students, who usually assigned North American species to wellknown European genera. Years ago Dybas stated that only a fraction of the actual number of North American ptiliid species had been named, and certainly some of them seemed to belong to already known genera of tropical distribution not occurring in Europe, or would need to have new genera erected. Dybas (1990) also remarked that a few North American polytypic genera possibly should be split in two.Table 1 summarizes in a brief, updated checklist the current standing on the generic level of North American Ptiliidae (incl. Cephaloplectinae). I have not attempted a systematic arrangement since the internal classification of Ptiliidae is still poorly known. The checklist builds partly on Dybas (1990), Hall (1999, 2001) and Johnson (2001) but was corrected for authors and dates. It should be contrasted with Poole and Gentili (1996) for spelling, years of description, included taxa, etc.For the last 15 years I have scanned large amounts of ptiliid material, both from main sources of larger museum collections in North America and from minor collections of other origin. I can confirm the view of Dybas as cited above, although species-rich genera such as Acrotrichis, Ptenidium Erichson, Ptinella Motschulsky and Ptiliolum Flach, do in fact share a fair number of species with the European or Palaearctic realm. As far as possible I have taken notes on records of species new to North America, Canada or U.S.A., and their provinces/states. Below is presented a condensed list of such records. I have put special emphasis on ptiliid species regarded as common to America north of Mexico and Europe or the Palaearctic region. Additionally a few strictly Nearctic species have been included. Finds from geographical localities other than those cited below were seen for many states and species and were recorded for my personal files. For practical reasons only one record per state/province is cited.Materials and MethodsMaterial for this investigation was collected during my own field trips in Canada and U.S.A. and was supplemented by samples from the profuse collections of North American public museum as well as private collections of Ptiliidae generously put at my disposal, including a few European sources. During the course of study many thousands of specimens were studied, sexed and identified. This paper accounts for a part of that work. Altogether 4,604 specimens of 34 species from Canada and U.S.A. are listed below. They are preserved as drymounts or in ethanol and were studied and identified according to modern practice, involving checking genitalia of critical species. Whole slide mounts proved unnecessary for proper species identification.Genera and species within genera as presented below are given alphabetically. Species of Acrotrichis Motschulsky are listed according to their subgeneric and species group associations. In the species list states or provinces are given in bold style followed by original label data, including brief particulars on collecting and the number of specimens (if sexed). Number of specimens (not sexed) and abbreviated name of collection(s) and preservation then follow in parenthesis.Material from the following public institutions and private collections were studied: BMNH (The Natural History Museum, London), CCC (coll. Claude Chantal, Québec), CJLC (coll. J. L. Carr, Alberta), CKS (coll. Karl Stephan, Oklahoma), CMD (coll. Michael Darby, London), CNC (Canadian National Insect Collection, Ottawa), coll. P. Paquin (Ottawa), EDNH (Entomological Museum, Durham, New Hampshire), ESNN (coll. E. Sundt, Norsk Institutt for Skogforsking at Ås, Norway), FMNH (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago), HSLA (Public Health Service, Los Angeles), IVTA (Institut voor Taxonomie, Antwerpen), MCZ (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard), MM (Manchester Museum, Manchester), MSUL (coll. M. Sörensson, University of Lund, Sweden), WUMB (J. B. Wallis Museum, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg).ResultsOf 4,604 specimens examined 34 ptiliid species were identified: 3,306 representing 20 species belong to Acrotrichis Motschulsky. In all 1942 specimens of 30 species originate from Canada, 2,662 specimens of 28 sp

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.204 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Biodiversity Information Facility→French-language works237,207→