A morphological and mtDNA analysis of the badlands tiger beetle,\n<i>Cicindela (s. str.) decemnotata</i> Say, 1817 (Coleoptera: Carabidae:\nCicindelinae) with the description of three new subspecies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a morphological and mtDNA analysis of Cicindela decemnotata Say (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Cicindelinae) populations from throughout its geographic range to determine the extent of variation within the species and to assess the validity of subspecific names. The morphological study included an analysis of traditional subspecific characters including elytral color and maculations. These results provided evidence for the recognition of four subspecies of C. decemnotata, three of which are new: 1. C. d. decemnotata Say usually with green to dark green dorsal coloration and complete elytral maculations; it is widely distributed from Canada south to northern New Mexico and west into southern Utah and Idaho; 2. C. d. meriwetheri n. ssp. is distinguished by its bright green to green dorsal coloration, elytral maculation characterized by a thin middle band, a lack of humeral maculations, and a small number of genal setae; it has a restricted distribution from eastern Washington north to south central British Columbia; 3. C. d. bonnevillensis n. ssp. is distinguished by a combination of green to green-purple dorsal coloration and its greatly reduced elytral maculations; it is restricted to the area of ancient Lake Bonneville in north central Utah; 4. C. d. montevolans n. ssp. is distinguished by a predominately red-purple dorsal color and greatly reduced elytral maculations; its distribution is restricted to high elevations of the Bear River Mountains of northeastern Utah and southeastern Idaho. We also analyzed the mitochondrial haplotypes for cob and cox1 genes for one to six individuals from each of the six populations. This molecular analysis indicated recently diverged but discrete groups within C. decemnotata that are compatible with the subspecies distinctions postulated from morphology. These shallow molecular divergences within C. decemnotata are best explained by rapid phylogenetic radiation in the recent geological past in the wake of postglacial recession.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".