Prenatal sex ratios and expression of sexually dimorphic traits in three snake species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variation in intrauterine exposure to hormones associated with variation in the sex of litter mates has well-established and far-reaching effects on sexual development in some mammals. Research on this phenomenon in reptiles is scant, but suggests that lizards may follow the mammalian model whereas snakes may be affected differently. We examined sex-specific expression of four sexually dimorphic traits (tail length, head length, ventral scale count, swimming speed) in three species of snakes (Nerodia sipedon, Thamnophis sirtalis, T. sauritus) relative to litter sex ratios. We found little evidence that traits in either sex were masculinized or feminized in response to variation in litter sex ratio. The one significant result appeared best explained as a statistical artifact attributable to a single litter. Our results indicate that snakes are different from the one lizard studied to date. Unlike previous suggestions that prenatal hormonal mechanisms operate differently in snakes and lizards, however, the difference appears to be that development of sexually dimorphic traits in lizards is affected by litter sex ratios whereas in snakes it is not.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 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".