Agapostemon femoralis Sheffield & Vilhelmsen & Bakker 2021, stat. nov.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agapostemon femoralis (Guérin-Méneville, 1844) stat. nov. Figs 3, 7D, 8D, 9B, 10B Andrena (Agapostemon) femoralis Guérin-Méneville, 1844a: 447 [♂]. Halictus cubensis Spinola, 1851: 203 [♂, not ♀] [synonymy of Ag. viridula by Engel 2004: 170]. Agapostemon semiviridis Cresson, 1865: 172 [♀] [synonymy of Ag. viridulus by Baker 1906: 274]. Agapostemon obscurata Cresson, 1869: 295 [♂, not ♀ as indicated]. syn. nov. Agapostemon obscuratus var. abjectus Cockerell, 1917b: 436 [♂, not ♀ as indicated] [synonymy of Ag. obscuratus by Roberts 1972: 513]. Agapostemon viridualus – Janjic & Packer, 2003: 109. Lapsus calami. Material examined Lectotype (designated here, Fig. 3) CUBA • ♂; Monchicourt leg.; RMNH. INS.1283531. Additional material CUBA • 1 ♀ (lectotype of Agapostemon semiviridis Cresson, 1865, designated by Cresson 1916: 109); ANSP 2788 (Fig. 4) • 1 ♂ (lectotype of Agapostemon obscurata Cresson, 1869, designated by Cresson 1916: 108); ANSP 2790 (Fig. 5) • 1 ♂ (holotype of Agapostemon obscuratus var. abjectus Cockerell, 1917); Cabanas [Cabañas]; 28 May [no year provided]; Palmer and Riley leg.; USNM 22938 (Fig. 6). Notes The lectotype ♂ of Halictus cubensis Spinola, 1851 (designated by Engel 2004: 170), from Cuba, Havana, Spinola Collection, MSNT, was not examined as the synonymy was not questioned. Remarks The name and description of Andrena femoralis is attributed to Guérin-Méneville (1844a), though the name (i.e., Andrena femoralis Guer.), type locality (i.e., Cuba) and first illustration appear on plate 83, figure 1 (incorrectly recorded as plate 73 by Van der Vecht 1957) for Cuvier’s (1836) work published in 1837 (Cuvier 1837). These images were later duplicated in Guérin-Méneville (1844b) as “Insectès, Pl[ate]. 73, Figure 1 ”. Banks (1909) commented on the dates of Guérin-Méneville’s Iconographie du Regne Animali, indicating that the volume dedicated to insects (i.e., Guérin-Méneville 1844a) is dated 1829–1838 with many references to other dates within the text, including 1844, the year most researchers have used in citing this work (e.g., Roberts 1972; Michener 2000, 2007, though Moure (1960) indicated 1845). However, as Cuvier’s original plates were published in 1837 (Cuvier 1837), Banks (1909) felt that those of the opinion “that a named figure is valid without [accompanying] text must credit such names” with the dates of the plate publication. However, Cowan (1971) more recently reviewed the issue of Guérin-Méneville’s works and concluded that the date relevant to the insects is 1844, and this decision is followed here. Van der Vecht (1957) examined material that he assumed was part of the type material for Ag. femoralis at the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden (now Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Leiden), though he also indicated the possibility of syntypes existing at other institutions; other specimens with the same collection information exist at Naturalis Biodiversity Center. Thus, to stabilize Ag. femoralis as the valid name of this Cuban taxon, the specimen Van der Vecht (1957) provided details on (i.e., fig. 3) is hereby selected as the lectotype. Incidentally, Ag. femoralis is the type species for the genus Agapostemon (Sandhouse 1936, 1943; Michener 1997). Dalla Torre (1896) was the first to treat Ag. femoralis as a synonym of Ag. viridulus (later followed by Friese 1902), though the assumption that the type material of Ag. viridulus was collected in Cuba was baseless. The female type material of Halictus cubensis Spinola was not an Agapostemon, but rather Augochlora regina Smith, 1853 (Augochlorini) (Engel 2004), so Engel (2004) designated the male as a lectotype, and placed it into synonymy with Ag. femoralis. However, as a result of this designation, Ag. cubensis Roberts became a junior secondary homonym of Ag. cubensis (Spinola), thus requiring the replacement name provided below. Though Roberts (1972) records the synonymy of Ag. semiviridis Cresson under Ag. viridulus as new, Baker (1906) had already treated it as a synonym. When described, Cresson (1865) indicated that it was potentially the female of Ag. viridulus.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.024 |
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".