Bibliographic record
Abstract
258. White-footed Deermouse Peromyscus leucopus French: Péromyscus a pattes blanches / German: \Weil3ful3-Hirschmaus / Spanish: Ratén ciervo de pies blancos Other common names: \ White-footed Mouse Taxonomy. Musculus leucopus Rafinesque, 1818, type locality not given. Restricted by W. H. Osgood in 1909 to “mouth of the Ohio River,” Ballard County, Kentucky, USA. Peromyscus leucopus is in the leucopus species group. Seventeen subspecies recognized. Subspecies and Distribution. P.l.leucopusRafinseque,1818—SEUSA. P.l.affinis].A.Allen,1891—EOaxacaandSVeracruz,Mexico. P.l.ammodytesBangs,1905—knownonlyfromManomoyI,Massachusetts,USA. P.l.aridulusOsgood,1909—fromSESaskatchewanandSAlberta,Canada,StoNWKansas,USA.P.lLarizonae].A.Allen,1894—fromSEArizonaandSWNewMexico,USA,StoCDurango,Mexico. P.l.castaneusOsgood,1904—WYucatanPeninsula,Mexico. P.l.caudatusR.W.Smith,1939—SNovaScotia,Canada. P.l.cozumelaeMerriam,1901—CozumelI,Mexico. P.l.eastiParadiso,1960—knownonlyfromthetypelocalityandsurroundingareainSEVirginia,USA. P.l.fususBangs,1905—knownonlyfromMartha’sVineyardIandNantucketI,Massachusetts,USA. P.l.incensusGoldman,1942—fromWVeracruzSthroughPueblatoNOaxaca,Mexico. P.l.lachiguiriensisGoodwin,1956—knownonlyfromthetypelocalityandimmediatesurroundingareainSCOaxaca,Mexico. P.l.mesomelasOsgood,1904—fromextremeSESanLuisPotosiStoSVeracruz,Mexico. P.l.noveboracensis|].B.Fischer,1829—NEone-fourthofUSA. P.l.ochraceusOsgood,1909—CArizona,USA. P.l. texanus Woodhouse, 1853 — from NC Texas, USA, S to SE San Luis Potosi, Mexico. PL. tornillo Mearns, 1896 — from SE Colorado and SW Kansas S to W Texas, USA, and extreme N Chihuahua, Mexico. Descriptive notes. Head—body 85-105 mm, tail 45-100 mm, ear 13-16 mm, hindfoot 17-25 mm; weight 20-23 g. The White-footed Deermouse is small, with brown to cinnamon or gray dorsal pelage. Some subspecies have dark colored mid-dorsal line. Venter is whitish, with hairs having dark bases. Buffy pectoral spot may be present. Feet are white. Tail is slightly bicolored to uniform in color and generally equal to or shorter than head-body length. It is morphologically similar to the North American Deermouse (FP. maniculatus), and the two species often are difficult to discern. Habitat. Grasslands, old fields, mesquite grasslands, chaparral, thorn scrublands, riparian, pine forests, oak forests, secondary growth forests, tropical deciduous forests, and tropical perennial forests from sea level to elevations of ¢.3000 m. The White-footed Deermouse is found in mesic and arid regions and in temperate and tropical environments. In grasslands, there is generally some shrub or tree component. Food and Feeding. The White-footed Deermouse eats insects, seeds, and several types of green vegetation. Breeding. Litters of White-footed Deermice average 3-5-5 young, depending on region and time of year. Breeding can be strongly seasonal, with most reproduction in northern regions occurring in spring and late summer. In some regions, reproduction is year-round, with severallitters produced annually. Activity patterns. The White-footed Deermouse is nocturnal and semi-arboreal. It can enter torpor when temperatures drop below 3°C. Nests have been found aboveground; at ground level; under piles of rocks, tree stumps, and fallen trees; and in hollow trees. Nests are generally constructed with herbs, leaves, hair, seeds, feathers, shredded bark, and mosses. Movements, Home range and Social organization. In Hidalgo, Mexico, densities of up to 4-8 ind/ha were reported in xeric scrublands. Home ranges are 1155 m? for males and 459 m? for females. Status and Conservation. Classified as Least Concern on The IUCN Red Last. Bibliography. Batzli (1977), Baumgardner et al. (1980), Blair (1954), Burt (1940), Hall (1981), Hamilton (1941), Hamilton & Whitaker (1979), Judd et al. (1978), Lackey (1978), Lackey et al. (1985), McCarley (1963), Musser & Carleton (2005), Osgood (1909), Schug etal. (1991), Whitaker (1966).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.055 | 0.021 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".