The enigma of reversed asymmetry in lithodid crabs: absence of evidence for heritability or induction of morphological handedness in <i>Lopholithodes foraminatus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mutations or environmental factors that result in reversal of conspicuous left-right asymmetries provide an opportunity to study developmental mechanisms. They may also provide insight into evolutionary changes in asymmetry states within and between species. King crabs (family Lithodidae) have a larger right claw and females typically exhibit a dextrally offset abdomen. Nevertheless, I observed a high incidence of left handedness in laboratory reared box crabs (Lopholithodes foraminatus) and captured the first known egg-bearing female lithodid to exhibit reversed asymmetry. This provided a unique opportunity to characterize the reversed phenotype and to compare the incidence of reversed asymmetry in the offspring of normal and reversed females. Asymmetry of the chelae became apparent in the first postzoeal stage (glaucothoe) and handedness was maintained through subsequent instars. Females with larger left claws developed reversed abdominal asymmetry by the fourth crab stage. No reversed asymmetry was observed in the mandibles of zoea larvae or juveniles of either handedness. The incidence of reversed asymmetry in glaucothoe reared from one reversed and three normal females was high (between 20% and 30%), and independent of maternity (P=0.67). Removal of the right cheliped of fourth stage zoeae, and the major cheliped of glaucothoe, did not reverse the direction of asymmetry. Elevated larval rearing temperature also did not affect the frequency of reversed individuals. This lack of evidence for either heritability or induction of handedness is enigmatic. Further investigation of reversed asymmetry in lithodid crabs may provide valuable insights into the development and evolution of bilateral asymmetries.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".