A histological examination of the holding sacs and glandular scent organs of some bat species (Emballonuridae, Hipposideridae, Phyllostomidae, Vespertilionidae, and Molossidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using histological techniques at the light-microscope level, we examined and compared structure and sexual dimorphism of the wing sacs and integumentary glandular scent organs of 11 species of microchiropteran bats. The antebrachial wing sacs of the Neotropical emballonurids Peropteryx macrotis, Saccopteryx bilineata, and Saccopteryx leptura differed in size and location but lacked sudoriferous and sebaceous glands, confirming that they were holding sacs rather than glandular scent organs. Glandular scent organs from 11 species consisted of sebaceous and (or) sudoriferous glands in emballonurids (P. macrotis, S. bilineata, S. leptura, Taphozous melanopogon, Taphozous nudiventris), hipposiderids (Hipposiderous fulvus, Hipposiderous ater), the phyllostomid Sturnira lilium, the vespertilionid Rhogeessa anaeus, and molossids (Molossus ater and Molossus sinaloe). Glandular scent organs were located on the face (H. fulvus, H. ater), gular region (S. bilineata, P. macrotis, T. melanopogon, M. ater, M. sinaloe), chest (T. nudiventris), shoulder (S. lilium), or ears (R. anaeus). Glandular scent organs showed greater similarities within than between families, and typically were rudimentary or lacking in females. Scanning electron microscope examination revealed that the hairs associated with glandular areas of male T. melanopogon were larger and had a different cuticular-scale pattern than body hairs. These were osmetrichia, hairs specialized for holding and dispersing glandular products. In S. lilium, hairs associated with the shoulder scent-gland area were larger than body hairs but similar in cuticular-scale pattern.
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 | 0.001 | 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".