The secondary copulatory organ in female ground weta (Hemiandrus pallitarsis, Orthoptera: Anostostomatidae): a sexually selected device in females?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secondary sexual devices in female insects, primarily abdominal modifications, appear to function as a means of thwarting coercive mating attempts by males or are, in rare cases, sexually selected adaptations. Female ground weta, Hemiandrus pallitarsis (Orthoptera: Anostostomatidae), have an elaborate elbowed device on the underside of the mid-abdomen. Experimental removal of this accessory organ shows that it does not increase the probability of mating as predicted by the thwart-copulation hypothesis. Instead, removal prevents copulation, thus demonstrating that it is a secondary copulatory device. The male attaches to the organ both at the beginning of copulation and at the end, when he positions himself to adhere a spermatophylax food gift onto the mid-ventral region of his mate. The female accessory organ does not function to manipulate eggs or larvae (females provide care to their single clutch of offspring) and is unlikely to be a copulatory structure that prevents hybridization. The great extent of the modification of the ventral abdominal segments of H. pallitarsis females compared to other Hemiandrus species is consistent with a history of sexual selection on the accessory organ. Taken together, these results and the finding that the length of the accessory organ of H. pallitarsis correlates with female fecundity, suggest that this structure evolved under sexual selection to acquire nuptial gifts from males.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".