FIGURE 5 in The nomenclature of the Australasian dung beetle genera Mentophilus Castelnau, 1840 and Tesserodon Hope, 1837 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
FIGURE 5. Hope's vacillation. Hope (1837) vacillated about which name, spelling, and ranking to be applied to his new Australian genus-group taxon containing Fabricius's Scarabaeus hollandiae. (A) In his table of Fabrician scarabs on page 34, he assigned the species to the would-be new genus Anisodon Hope. (B) In the text on page 55, however, he not only said the taxon was actually a subgenus of Ateuchus, but that the proposed name was Tesserodon, shifting the reference from the shape of the clypeal teeth to their number. (C) In the figure plate illustrating the hollandiae type from the Banks collection, a new change and Tesserodon is now treated as a genus (and the specific name is the two-word version from 1775 instead of the one-word modification from 1781 as cited in the table and text). (D) Finally, in the errata list, Hope adds a further modification: the name is neither Anisodon nor Tesserodon, but Tessarodon. See the text for the resolution of this conundrum.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".