MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6968843003 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.5451798

Colaspis costipennis Crotch (Sand Hill St. Forest, SC 1873

2020· article· en· W6968843003 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrench hornSetaType (biology)DorsumApex (geometry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colaspis costipennis Crotch (Fig. 3–4, 17–18, 40, 43, 49, Map 2) Colaspis brunnea, var. costipennis Crotch 1873: 44; type locality: not originally stated. Horn 1892: 224. Colaspis Crotchi Lefèvre 1884: cxcix [as valid species, unnecessary replacement name for Colaspis brunnea, var. costipennis Crotch, 1873]. Lefèvre 1885: 52 [catalogue]. Colaspis costipennis Crotch. Blake 1974: 14, fig. 23. Type material. Images of a syntype (MCZ Type Database) examined. The imaged syntype is a male (determined by shape of pro- and meso-basitarsi), labeled “[orange disc = southern and Gulf states] || C. costipennis | (2) + Dej. || [red label] M.C.Z. | Type | 28447 || MCZ-ENT | 00028447 | [matrix barcode]”. Blake (1974) examined this specimen. It is a model example of the species, having a bright metallic green head and pronotum and broad pale elytral costae. Remarks. The broad, markedly raised, and pale primary costae are diagnostic. The pale costae contrast strongly with the darker punctate strial areas. Heavily marked specimens have the head, pronotum, elytral marginal trim and strial areas, and the venter distinctly metallic green. In less strongly marked specimens, these areas are brownish with a faint metallic reflection. Males tend to be more elongate than males of other species of the group and have the punctate strial intervals narrow, often not much wider than the primary costate are broad. In most male specimens, there is little trace of secondary costae, the strial punctation of these areas is combined into a single punctate field. Females are more robust than males with the costae more widely spaced, and the secondary costae usually partially developed. Body length ranges from 3.9–4.9 mm. Among the dissected males, there is notable variation in the shape of the median lobe (en-face view), more variation than seen in other species of Colaspis. The post-orifical length is moderately long, but the general shape may be evenly tapered (Fig. 40a, c) to sub-angulate (Fig. 40b, d) and the apical nodule distinct (Fig. 40a, c, d) or obsolete (Fig. 40b). Range. Map 2. Previously recorded from several Atlantic coastal states ranging from Massachusetts to Louisiana (Blake 1974). It appears to be restricted to the Atlantic and eastern Gulf coastal plain, and the immediate coast in the northern-most portions of its range. In Florida, it occurs as far south as the Miami area on the east coast, and the Tampa area on the west coast. I have been unable to confirm its occurrence in Louisiana, although it is expected in the Florida parishes (southeastern Louisiana). Chapin (1979) reported one specimen from Natchitoches Parish (central Louisiana), but this specimen is a male C. suilla (LSUC, examined). I have been unable to locate the locality “Perdicto Beach”, the single Louisiana locality cited by Blake (1974). The listings of C. costipennis from Ontario and Manitoba, Canada (LeSage 1991; Bousquet et al. 2013), are likely based on misidentifications. My examination of images of CNC specimens under the name C. costipennis show that they are examples of C. suilla. I have seen specimens from USA: AL, FL, GA, ME, MS, NC, NH, NY and SC. Biological notes. Data from Blake (1974) and specimen labels indicate associations with many kinds of plants, with several references to oaks (all from Florida), including Q. laevis Walter, Q. laurifolia Michx., and Q. nigra L. Specimens examined. 229 total, see Appendix 2.

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)0.000
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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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