Communication ecology of webbing clothes moth: evidence for male-produced aggregation signal(s)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are no definitive behavioural studies on the webbing clothes moth, Tineola bisselliella (Hum.) (Lepidoptera: Tineidae), that demonstrate the sex emitting or responding to communication signals. Roth and Willis (1952) reported male courtship (wing-fanning) behaviour ≤1 cm from an excised female pheromone gland, suggesting the presence of a female-produced sex pheromone that is effective at close range; however, isolated or groups of males also wing-fanned in the absence of females (Titschack 1922; Roth and Willis 1952; S Takács, personal observation). Titschack (1922) suggested that this behaviour may serve to either “disperse odorous substances” produced by males or indicate sexual excitement, while Roth and Willis (1952) considered wingfanning in the absence of females as “vacuum activity”. Male T. bisselliella responded more strongly to larval habitat and sought it earlier at night than females (Takács et al. 2001 a , 2001 b ). Habitat selection by males could enhance their mating success by placing them near resources essential to females (Emlen and Oring 1977; Thornhill and Alcock 1983). If males were to produce communication signals, they may enhance the attractiveness of larval habitat to foraging females. Our objective was to determine whether male and (or) female T. bisselliella produce mate-attracting signals.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".