Relationships between external morphology and foraging behaviour: bats in the genus<i>Myotis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A morphometric study of 41 species of Myotis revealed significant associations between morphological features and foraging styles, namely aerial feeding, gleaning, feeding over water, and trawling. Aerial feeders have small hind feet, short calcars, short ears, and narrow tragi. Gleaners have small hind feet, long ears, and wide tragi and tend to be larger in body size. Bats that feed over water have large hind feet, short calcars, short ears, and narrow tragi and tend to be smaller in body size. Trawlers have large hind feet and long calcars and tend to be larger in body size. The morphometric analysis also confirmed that some species of Myotis were intermediate in morphological features, coincid ing with alternation between foraging styles. The results support the view that the morphological features previously used to assign Myotis species to subgenera are more functional than phylogenetic, a position supported by recent genetic analyses. Examination of foraging styles from a phylogenetic perspective suggests that aerial feeding is ancestral and that subsequent diversification has been associated with partitioning and specialization into either gleaning or foraging over water and trawling. When the predictions from the multivariate analysis of the data for the genus Myotis are used with data from other bats, they suggest that 5 species of Nycteris are gleaners, while 11 species of Eptesicus are either aerial feeders or feed over water.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".