MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6968770064 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3812742

Dolichogenidea fernandeztrianai Abdoli and Talebi 2019, sp. nov.

2019· article· en· W6968770064 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolotypeApex (geometry)OvipositorArthropod mouthpartsGenusVeinAntenna (radio)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dolichogenidea fernandeztrianai Abdoli and Talebi sp. nov. (Figures 2 and 3) Type of Material Holotype: Female, Mazandaran Province, Noor, Chamestan, Tangehvaz (36° 21′ 55.68″ N, 52° 06′ 10.32″ E, 702 m a.s.l.), 05.ix.2011 (TMUC). Paratypes: 2 females, same data as Holotype (TMUC). Diagnosis The newly described species can be distinguished from all previously described species of the genus Dolichogenidea from the Palaearctic region by the following combination of characters: Antennal flagellomeres, all coxae and metafemur dark brown to black; tegula reddish yellow or yellow; pterostigma whitish yellow with brownish margin; propodeum with areola weakly defined by an impression; fore wing vein R 1 as long as or slightly longer than pterostigma; vein R 1 4.90× as long as distance of vein R 1 to vein 3RSb (Figure 3- A); T 1 more or less parallel- to subparallelsided i.e., slightly narrower medially; T1 smooth, with a distinct protuberance on central area; T1 length 1.70× posterior width; T2 smooth, transverse and rectangular; T 3 longer than T2 (Figure 2- F); hypopygium pointed apically and slightly protruding beyond apical tergites; ovipositor sheath with uniform width from base to apex and clearly longer than metatibia (Figure 2- E). Description (Female-Holotype) Body Length without Ovipositor: 2.50 mm, antennae length 2.60 mm and forewing length 2.60 mm Head: Antenna about as long as body; F 2, 3, 14, 15 length/width: 2.40, 2.40, 1.30 and 1.30, respectively; mouthparts not elongated (Figures 2-A and -B); head rounded or weakly constricted behind eyes (Figure 2- C); upper face (frons) smooth to rather finely punctate; gena, vertex and lower face (face) distinctly punctate; basal width of mandible 3.20–4.00× malar space length (Figure 2-A); OOL, OD, POL length: 0.13, 0.06 and 0.13 mm, respectively (Figure 2- C). Mesosoma: Anteromesoscutum densely punctate and setose, notauli indistinct; scutoscutellar suture narrow, distinctly crenulate; mesoscutellar disc finely and sparsely punctate to smooth and shiny; metanotum with uniform coarse wrinkles; anterior half of propodeum with few punctures and shiny, rest mostly smooth to slightly uneven; propodeum without distinct areola, weakly defined by an impression; pronotum weakly punctate; propleuron punctate; prepectal carina absent; mesopleuron medially smooth with some punctures on antero- and ventro-lateral parts; metapleuron weakly wrinkle to smooth, anteriodorsal corner rugulose, and with deep medial pit on anterior half (Figure 2-D). Wings: Forewing length 2.60 mm; Forewing length/width: 2.90; vein R1 as long as or slightly longer than pterostigma; Pterostigma length/width: 2.50; vein R1 4.90× as long as distance of vein R1 to vein 3RSb; vein r as long as or slightly longer than vein 2RS; vein 1-CUb slightly shorter than vein 1-CUa (Figure 3-A). Legs: Metafemur length/width: 3.60; length of metafemur, metatibial, metabasitarsus and sum of other metatarsal segments i.e., sum of segments 2, 3, 4 and 5: 0.75, 0.85, 0.40 and 0.60 mm, respectively; length of metatibial inner and outer spur 0.20 and 0.17 mm, respectively; metatibia inner spur length/metabasitarsus length: 0.50. Metasoma: T1 more or less parallel- to subparallel-sided i.e. slightly narrower medially; T1 smooth, with a distinct central protuberance; T1 length 1.70× posterior width; T2 smooth, transverse and rectangular (T2 posterior width 2.75× its medial length); T3 longer than T2 (T3/T2 length: 1.25) (Figure 2-F); hypopygium pointed apically, slightly extending beyond the apex of metasoma; ovipositor sheath with uniform width and slightly curved downwards; ovipositor sheath clearly longer than metatibia (ovipositor sheath 1.20× as long as metatibia), ovipositor sheath length 1.15 mm (Figure 2-E). Colouration: Body black; except yellow or reddish yellow mouthparts, tegula, fore legs, apex of mesofemur, mesotibia, mesotarsus, basal one-third of metatibia and ovipositor; metatarsus brown; palpi whitish yellow; pterostigma whitish yellow, with brownish margin; wing venation with combination of whitish yellow and brown (Figures 2 and 3). Male: Unknown. Note: Although there is no available key that covers all Palaearctic species of Dolichogenidea, we provide comparisons of Dolichogenidea fernandeztrianai sp. nov. with all previous keys of Palaearctic Dolichogenidea. Dolichogenidea fernandeztrianai sp. nov. runs close to D. britannica (Wilkinson, 1941), in the keys by Nixon (1972) but it differs from the latter as follows: in D. fernandeztrianai sp. nov. T1 more or less parallel- to subparallel-sided not narrowed apically and ovipositor sheath 1.20× as long as metatibia (whereas in D. britannicus T1 markedly narrowed towards apex and ovipositor sheath twice as long as metatibia). This species runs into D. jilinensis Chen and Song (2004) [this species is synonymized with D. purda (Papp, 1977) by Liu et al. (2018)] as per the key by Chen and Song (2004), nevertheless, it differs from D. fernandeztrianai sp. nov. as follows: in D. fernandeztrianai sp. nov. T1 length 1.70× posterior width; pterostigma whitish yellow, with brownish margin; anterior half of propodeum with some punctures, shiny, other areas mostly smooth to slightly uneven, propodeum without distinct areola, weakly defined by an impression; notauli not defined (whereas in D. purda, T1 1.50× its posterior width, pterostigma evenly brown; propodeum mostly smooth, with only a small trace of posterior areola carinae near nucha, notauli distinct by crowded punctation). This species runs in the key by Liu et al. (2018) to D. poliobrevis Liu & Chen, 2018, however, it differs from D. fernandeztrianai sp. nov. as follows: in D. fernandeztrianai sp. nov. T1 more or less parallel- to subparallel-sided i.e., slightly narrowermedially, T1 length 1.70× posterior width; pterostigma whitish yellow, with brownish margin; ovipositor sheath 1.20× as long as metatibia (whereas in D. poliobrevis T1 parallel-sided and as long as posterior width, pterostigma brown, ovipositor sheath nearly as long as metatibia). Dolichogenidea fernandeztrianai sp. nov. is similar to Dolichogenidea eleagnellae Tobias, 1976, but it differs from D. eleagnellae as follows: in D. fernandeztrianai sp. nov. scutoscutellar suture narrowed with 20 crenulate; ovipositor sheath clearly longer than metatibia, 1.20× as long as metatibia; pterostigma whitish yellow, with brownish margin (whereas in eleagnellae scutoscutellar suture wide and deep with 10 crenulate; ovipositor sheath slightly longer than metatibia; pterostigma entirely dark i.e. opaque brown to blackish brown, without pale basal spot). Paratypes: F 2, 3, 14, 15 length/width: 2.40–2.70, 2.40–2.70, 1.16–1.30 and 1.20– 1.25, respectively; OOL,OD,POL length: 0.12, 0.05–0.06 and 0.13–0.15 mm, respectively; Forewing length: 2.70–2.75 mm; Forewing length/width: 2.90–3.00; Pterostigma length/width: 2.60–2.70; length of metafemur, metatibial, metabasitarsus and sum of other metatarsal segments: 071–0.75, 0.83–0.92, 0.41–0.42 and 0.60 mm, respectively. Etymology: The new species is named in the honor of Dr. Jose L. Fernandez-Triana, specialist on the systematics of Braconidae at the Canadian National Collection of Insects, for his significant contributions to the Microgastrinae knowledge of the world.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.154 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomyFrench-language works237,207