Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acicnemis laeta Hubenthal, 1919 Figs 1, 2 B, 6 G 1–6, 2, 18 Type material examined (Taiwan: 71). Lectotype (designated here). Taiwan • Fuhosho, “ IX. 07–09 ”, Sauter, SDEI, SDEI Muncheberg Col 20204, bears the original red label reading “ Syntypus ” as well as a new, red lectotype label reading “ LECTOTYPE / Acicnemis laeta / Hubenthal, 1919 / Det. Lewis & Kojima, 2025 ”. Paralectotypes. Taiwan • Fuhosho, “ IX. 07–09 ”, Sauter (22, SDEI), SDEI Muncheberg Col 18617–18623 & 20199–20203 & 20205–20214, all bear a red label reading “ Syntypus ” and new, yellow paralectotype labels; • Hoozan, “ 08–10 ”, Sauter (18, SDEI), SDEI Muncheberg Col 18624–18632 & 20215–20223, all bear a red label reading “ Syntypus ” and new, yellow paralectotype labels; • Kosempo, Sauter (2, SDEI), SDEI Muncheberg Col 18633–18634, bear a red label reading “ Syntypus ” and new, yellow paralectotype labels. Non-type material. Taiwan • Lingui, 18. VI. 1979, S. Nakamura, W. Chen (1, KUM), JHL_AREV_526; • Pi Shan Spa, Tai Tung Hsein, 2. VI. 1987, K. Baba (2, KUM), JHL_AREV_527, JHL_AREV_528; • Guandaoxi, I. VI. 1973, K. Kojima (2, KUM), JHL_AREV_529, JHL_AREV_530; • Jihyueh-tan, Nantou Hsein, 12. V. 1977, H. Fujita (1, KUM), JHL_AREV_531; • Kenting Park, Pingtung Hsein, 11. V. 1970, M. Takagi (1, KUM), JHL_AREV_532; • Nanshanchi, Nantou Hsein, 7. V. 1977, T. Niisato (1, KUM), JHL_AREV_533; • Liu Kui, 28. III. – 10. IV. 1986, K. Baba (2, KUM), JHL_AREV_534, JHL_AREV_535; • Kenting, Pingtung Hsein, 2. IV. 1965, S. Ueno (2, KUM), JHL_AREV_536, JHL_AREV_537; • Nanshanchi, 30. IV. 1965, T. Nakane, T. Shirozu (2, KUM), JHL_AREV_538, JHL_AREV_539; • Nanshanchi, Nantou Hsein, 12. VII. 1966 (1, KUM), JHL_AREV_540; • Shyk Shan, near Liu Kui, 25. IV. 1986, K. Baba (1 dissected male, KUM), JHL_AREV_541; • Nanshanchi, 3. V. 1979, K. Emoto (1, KUM), JHL_AREV_664; • Lienhoachi, 12. V. 1975, S. Imasaka (1, TUA), JHL_AREV_665; • “ community park ”, 28. X. 1976 (1, TUA), JHL_AREV_666; • Nantou, 24. V. 1983, K. Ra, (1, HUM), JHL_AREV_773; • Wushe, 29. IV. – 3. V. 1983, H. Townes (3, CMNC), JHL_AREV_669 – JHL_AREV_671; • Liukei, Kaohshiiung, 29. IV. – 8. V. 1982, H. Takizawa (3, HUM), JHL_AREV_675 – JHL_AREV_677; • near Liukuei, Kaohsiung Hsien, 5–9. IV. 1995, H. Kojima (1, TUA), JHL_AREV_690; • “ Formosa ”, T. Kano (1, NMNS), JHL_AREV_680; • Kao; • Nanshan Riv. Trail, Ren’ai Township, Nantou County, 18–19. X. 2017, K. Narita (2, KUM), JHL_DNA_124 (GenBank accession number: PV 255630), JHL_AREV_125 (GenBank accession number: PV 255631). Diagnosis. Body length 4.1–5.8 mm. Covered in pale brown scales, with alternating white and black scaled bands on odd elytral intervals. Scutellum covered in yellow to brown scales. Only odd elytral intervals with erect scales. Sclerolepidia distinct and protruding. Posterior edge of prosternum with prominent projections contiguous with the fore-coxae (Fig. 2 B). Third tarsomeres distinctly emarginate. Pedon with lateral edges approx. parallel in dorsal view, but converging evenly into a moderately acute point in apical 1 / 2. Internal sac protruding and with two bead-shaped sclerotized structures in basal 1 / 2, and a vase-shaped structure in apical 1 / 2 with roughened musculature (Fig. 6 G 1 – 2). Distribution. We only encountered this species from Taiwan. The records from Japan and the Kuril Islands (Russia / Japan) noted in Alonso-Zarazaga et al. (2023) are almost certainly erroneous and this species may have been confused with A. azumai. This species may plausibly occur in mainland Asia (China) (listed as occurring there by Alonso-Zarazaga et al. (2023)), but we have yet to examine any specimens of A. laeta from this region. Remarks. This species is superficially quite similar to A. azumai, but differs in pronotal, prosternal, and genital morphology.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".