The uncertain history of land snails on Barbados: Implications for conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing need to document and conserve molluscan biodiversity, both for scholarly reasons and for public benefit.While the pursuance of these goals necessarily relies on historical records, the accuracy of such records is often taken for granted.We analyzed six previously published lists of land snails on the island of Barbados, and we compared them with results from our own field survey and our study of institutional collections.The current fauna contains six endemic species.Another endemic, Bulimulus fuscus, is probably extinct, and the status of two additional endemics, Lucidella barbadensis and Pseudopineria barbadensis, is unknown.Our total of 22 resident species is close to the total number of confirmed species collected by three earlier workers dating from 1862, but there are considerable differences in the four lists.When any one list is compared with any one of the others, each contains from one to six species that are absent from the other.Altogether, we confirm 31 species as present on Barbados at some time in the period 1862 to the present, compared with a total of 58 species reported by earlier workers.Our analysis allows us to confirm just 23 of the 37 species reported by Brown in 1903, whose list is the basis for a widely consulted conservation reference.By examining institutional collections and tracking down all pertinent literature, we discovered numerous errors of identity, locality and taxonomy.Adding to the task facing modern workers is the finding that at least 136 species names have been used to refer to 38 valid taxa, as a result of misidentifications, synonyms and genus/species combinations.We conclude that indications of historical trends in snail diversity should be treated with caution until critically evaluated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".