MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6968555732 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.15218525

Empis (Enoplempis) cerina Sinclair, Brooks & Cumming, 2025, sp. nov.

2025· article· en· W6968555732 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolotypeSubgenusPedicelSetaParatypeHead (geology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empis (Enoplempis) cerina sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act: A6C23F7C-E040-4939-8423-025DAD0F60C8 (Figs 291, 297, 298, 308) Type material. HOLOTYPE ♂ (Fig. 291), labelled: “USA: CA: Siskiyou Co.,/ Weed, Columbine Rd,/ 41°23′21″N 122°25′10″W,/ 15.ii-24.vi.2016, MT, E. Boyd,/ CNC695049 ”; “ HOLOTYPE / Empis (Enoplempis) / cerina Sinclair,/ Brooks & Cumming [red label]” (CNC). PARATYPES: USA. California: Mendocino County: No.Cal. Coast Range Pres., 5 mi. N Branscomb [39°42′N 123°39′W], 26.v.1976, JAP (1♂, EMEC); same data except, 26–27.v.1976, R. Wharton (1♂, EMEC). Siskiyou County: Same data as holotype except, CNC695047 (1♂, CNC). Trinity County: Buttercreek Mdw, 8 mi. W Hayfork [40°34′N 123°8′W], 21.v.1973, M. Bentzien (1♀, EMEC); 4 mi. S Hayfork, 18.v.1973, JAP (1♂, 1♀, EMEC); Hayfork Rgr Sta., 2300 ft, 21.v.1973, at bl. lites, JAP (1♀, EMEC). Oregon: Benton County: Adair A.F. Sta. [44°40′N 123°13′W], 15.v.1969, E.M. Fisher (1♂, 1♀, CAS; 1♂, CSCA). Hood River County: Hood River [45°42′N 121°31′W], 19.v.1917, F. R. Cole (1♂, USNM). Lane County: Oakridge, 18 mi. NW [43°52′N 122°42′W], 12.v.1969, E.M. & J.L. Fisher (1♂, CSCA). Diagnosis. This species is distinguished from other species of the subgenus by the yellow body (Fig. 291), and males are holoptic, with unmodified hindleg. Description. Wing length 5.6–6.4 mm. Male. Similar to E. (En.) californica sp. nov., except as follows: head holoptic. Postpedicel, stylus dark, scape and pedicel pale brown. Thorax yellowish brown in ground-colour, with thin greyish pruinescence (Fig. 291). Scutum with median pair of narrow, brownish vittae; posterior face of postpronotal lobe shiny. Antepronotum with 4 or more pairs of dark setae. Postpronotum with 1 long seta and several short, dark setae. Scutum with short, fine biserial acr; dc slightly longer, stronger than acr, increasing in length and stronger posteriorly; 2 posterior npl, with several shorter anterior npl; 1 presut spal; 1 psut spal; 1–2 pal. Scutellum with pair of long apical sctl, with outer pair of marginal setae. Legs long, stocky, yellow to orange brown, apex of tibiae, apex of tarsomere 1 and sometimes tarsomere 2 and remaining tarsomeres darker brown; coxae with thin pruinescence (Fig. 291). Mid femur with white ventral pile, absent on fore and hind femora. Fore femur with anteroventral and posteroventral row of slender setae, shorter than half width of femur. Fore tibia with 2–3 erect anterodorsal, length slightly longer than width of tibia; anterior face with short appressed setae. Fore tarsomere 1 swollen with long dorsal setae, length slightly longer than width of tarsomere, with fine dense ventral setae; tarsomeres 2–5 with biserial row of spine-like ventral setae; tarsomeres 1–4 with apicolateral pair of spine-like setae, longer than width of segment. Mid femur similar to fore femur. Mid tibia with 3 erect posterodorsal setae and pair of anterodorsal and posteroventral basal setae, length slightly longer than width of tibia. Mid tarsomeres 1–5 with biserial row of spine-like ventral setae; tarsomeres 1–4 with apicolateral pair of spine-like setae, longer than width of segment. Hind femur slender, without modified setae and processes; rows of fine ventral setae, length shorter than half width of femur; 2–3 anterodorsal setae on apical fourth (Fig. 291). Hind tibia without processes or modified setae; long dorsal setae on apical two-thirds, length less than twice width of tibia (Fig. 291). Hind tarsus swollen with long dorsal setae, similar to tibia, with strong setae among finer dense ventral setae; tarsomeres 2–5 similar to fore tarsus. Wing with veins complete (except Sc). Abdomen yellow, paler than thorax, with dense whitish dorsal pruinescence. Terminalia (Figs 297, 298): yellow, with dorsal margin of cerci dark brown. Cercus linear, with straight dorsal margin; apex tapered; setae denser along dorsal margin, shorter than width of cercus. Subepandrial process extending on either side of phallus. Epandrial lamella elongate, longer than height; posterior margin with distinct upturned dorsally; apex rounded, bearing long setae ventrally, shorter than width of epandrium. Hypandrium narrow, strap-like; without setae. Phallus (Fig. 298) with basal half strongly expanded, tapered apically; apical half sinuous, with hooked apex; apex emerging beyond cerci; roughened surface proximal to apex, near opposite dorsal margin of epandrial lamella; ejaculatory apodeme elongate, length two-thirds length of epandrium, Y-shaped, with lateral apodemes positioned near ventral margin. Female. Similar to male, except as follows: frons broader, wider than anterior ocellus; fore tarsomere not swollen; hind tibia with 4–6 strong anterodorsal and posterodorsal erect setae.Abdominal pleural membrane without darkened, expanded region; tergite 8 and syntergite 9+10 with pruinescence. Geographical distribution and seasonal occurrence (Fig. 308). Empis (En.) cerina sp. nov. is known from Oregon and northern California. Adults have been collected from February to June. Etymology. This species is named from the Latin for wax coloured or yellowish, in reference to the species yellowish body colouration. Nuptial gift presentation. Form unknown. Remarks. This yellow species keys to E. rufescens Loew (= E. colonica Walker) using the key in Melander (1902), but the latter species is confined to eastern North America and lacks the stout ventral spine-like setae on the tarsi.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.020

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicIchthyology and Marine Biology→French-language works237,207→