Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genus Lutzomyia França Phlebotomus, subg. Lutzomyia França, 1924: 10 (nom. nov. for Lutzia França, 1920). Type species, Phlebotomus longipalpis Lutz & Neiva, 1912 (orig. des.). Lutzia França, 1920: 234 (not Theobald, 1903). Preoccupied name. Fransaia Dyar & Núñez-Tovar, 1927: 155 (nom. nov. for Lutzia França, 1920, not Theobald, 1903). Lutziomyia Cordero, Vogelsang & Cossio, 1928: 649 (nom. nov. for Lutzia França, 1920, not Theobald, 1903). Lutziola Strand, 1932: 195 (nom. nov. for Lutzia França, 1920; not Theobald, 1903). Comm.: Due to its recognized medical importance, this is the New World psychodid genus that has been most studied. Its distribution extends from Canada to Argentina (Young & Duncan 1994), although the greatest diversity of species is concentrated in the Neotropics, particularly in Brazil and Colombia. Although these species have been the object of numerous revisions (Barretto 1955b, 1962, Theodor 1965, Forattini 1973, Abonnenc & Leger 1976, Lewis et al. 1977, Martins et al. 1978, Young 1979, Artemiev 1991, Young & Duncan 1994, Galati 1995, CIPA group 1999), its taxonomy remains as controversial as ever. Two taxonomic proposals are currently extant, one of which suggests that Lutzomyia is a single genus comprised of 26 subgenera and species groups (Young & Duncan 1994) and the other dividing the taxon into 19 genera (Galati 1995, 2003a). The present catalogue adopts the former approach, without giving any consideration to the putative subgenera of Lutzomyia. However, there is clearly a need for detailed molecular studies that involve representatives of all the subgenera or genera described to allow its evolutionary history to be unravelled (Bejarano 2002). Young & Duncan (1994), CIPA group (1999) and Galati (2003a, b) all carried out detailed revisions of the taxonomy and geographic distribution of this group of insects. Of the almost 500 species described from the Neotropics, 153 have been recorded from Colombia, besides six that have not been formally described, i.e., Lu. sp. no. 1 from Araracuara Morales & Minter, 1981, Lu. sp. no. 2 from Araracuara Morales & Minter, 1981, Lu. sp. from Pichindé Young, 1979, Lu. sp. from Tres Esquinas Young, 1979, Lu. sp. from Anchicayá Young, 1979 and Lu. sp. from Baduel (Floch & Abonnenc, 1945a). The two undescribed species from Araracuara, known from both males and females, have only been collected from the Department of Caquetá, whereas Lu. sp. of Pichindé, for which both sexes are also known, has been recorded from Norte de Santander (Gálvis-Ovallos et al. 2013), Risaralda, Santander (Sandoval et al. 2006) and Valle del Cauca. The undescribed species Lu. sp. of Tres Esquinas, known only from female specimens, has been reported from Caquetá, Guaviare (Cabrera et al. 2009), Meta (Cabrera et al. 2009) and Putumayo. Two of the six undescribed species have also been collected outside Colombia: Lu. sp. of Anchicayá, known only from the male, which has been recorded from Ecuador (Young & Duncan 1994) as well as Valle del Cauca, Colombia; and Lu. sp. from Baduel, considered by some authors to be conspecific to Lu. sericea (Floch & Abonnenc, 1944a) (Leon et al. 2009), reported from Brazil, French Guiana and Suriname as well as the Colombian departments of Guaviare (Cabrera et al. 2009) and Vichada. Note: Bibliographic citations are only given for those geographic records not included by the CIPA group (1999) or Bejarano (2006a), as well as for unavailable names. Similarly, only literature published since the latter article is cited, dealing with changes in the taxonomic status of the species.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.008 |
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".