Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amphicercidus Oestlund, 1923 Amphicercidus Oestlund, 1923: 126. Type species. Aphis pulverulens Gillette, 1911 by original designation. Diagnosis. Body elliptical and heavily covered with white wax powder in life; body dorsum smooth, abdominal tergites often with large and round marginal or spinal tubercles; setae of body dorsum and appendages long and pointed; head with undeveloped diverging antennal tubercles; median frontal tubercle flat or slightly swollen; antennal segment III with 3–49 secondary rhinaria in apterae and 2–152 secondary rhinaria in alatae; the second hind tarsal segment at least 1.50 × of ultimate rostral segment; siphunculi as long stout cylinder, without flange, smooth or with fine transverse wrinkles; cauda broad, about as long as or slightly longer than its basal width. The genus resembles Macchiatiella Del Guercio, 1909 in antennal segment III with secondary rhinaria and broad cauda, but it can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) antennal tubercles undeveloped (in Macchiatiella: antennal tubercles well developed); (2) body dorsum without sclerotized markings (in Macchiatiella: body dorsum with sclerotized markings); (3) second hind tarsal segment at least 1.50 × of ultimate rostral segment (in Macchiatiella: second hind tarsal segment shorter than ultimate rostral segment); (4) siphunculi without flange (in Macchiatiella: siphunculi with flange). The genus also resembles Allocotaphis Börner, 1950 in having broad cauda, but it can be distinguished as follows: (1) abdominal tergites smooth, without sclerotized markings (in Allocotaphis: abdominal tergites often with sclerotized markings); (2) setae of body dorsum and appendages long and pointed (in Allocotaphis: setae of body dorsum and appendages short and pointed or capitate); (3) antennal segment III with numerous round secondary rhinaria in alatae (in Allocotaphis: antennal segment III with protuberant secondary rhinaria); (4) second hind tarsal segment at least 1.50 × of ultimate rostral segment (in Allocotaphis: second hind tarsal segment shorter than ultimate rostral segment); (5) siphunculi without flange (in Allocotaphis: siphunculi with developed flange). The genus also similar to Anuraphis Del Guercio, 1907 in having broad cauda, but it can be distinguished as follows: (1) most species feeding on Lonicera (Caprifoliaceae) (in Anuraphis: the species transfer between Prunus (Rosaceae) and Asteraceae or Apiaceae); (2) body dorsum without sclerotized markings (in Anuraphis: body dorsum with sclerotized markings) (3) siphunculi long stout cylinder, smooth or with fine transverse wrinkles, without flange (in Anuraphis: siphunculi short cylinder and tapering, with close-set rows of minute fine spinules, with distinct flange); (4) second hind tarsal segment at least 1.50 × of ultimate rostral segment (in Anuraphis: second hind tarsal segment shorter than ultimate rostral segment). Biology. Most species feed on the shoots and leaves of Lonicera (Caprifoliaceae), but Amphicercidus flocculosus (Gillette & Palmer, 1929) and Amphicercidus pulverulens (Gillette, 1911) feed on Symphoricarpus (Caprifoliaceae), and Amphicercidus laniger (Takahashi, 1927) feeds on the young stems of Stauntonia (Lardizabalaceae) (Blackman and Eastop 2024). Distribution. China, Japan, Korea, India, Central Asia, Russia, USA, Canada, Mexico (Blackman and Eastop 2024).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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.
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".