Evolution of <i>Drosophila</i> sex comb length illustrates the inextricable interplay between selection and variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In spite of the diversity of possible biological forms observed in nature, a limited range of morphospace is frequently occupied for a given trait. Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain this bias in the distribution of phenotypes including selection, drift, and developmental constraints. Despite extensive work on phenotypic bias, the underlying developmental mechanisms explaining why particular regions of morphological space remain unoccupied are poorly understood. To address this issue, we studied the sex comb, a group of modified bristles used in courtship that shows marked morphological diversity among Drosophila species. In many Drosophila species including Drosophila melanogaster, the sex comb rotates 90° to a vertical position during development. Here we analyze the effect of changing D. melanogaster sex comb length on the process of rotation. We find that artificial selection changes the number of bristles per comb without a proportional change in the space available for rotation. As a result, when increasing sex comb length, rather than displaying a similar straight vertical shape observed in other Drosophila species, long sex combs bend because rotation is blocked by a neighboring row of bristles. Our results show ways in which morphologies that would be favored by natural selection are apparently impossible to achieve developmentally. These findings highlight the potential role of development in modifying selectable variation in the evolution of Drosophila sex comb length.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".