The Heterozygote Superiority Hypothesis for Polymorphic Color Vision Is Not Supported by Long-Term Fitness Data from Wild Neotropical Monkeys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The leading explanatory model for the widespread occurrence of color vision polymorphism in Neotropical primates is the heterozygote superiority hypothesis, which postulates that trichromatic individuals have a fitness advantage over other phenotypes because redgreen chromatic discrimination is useful for foraging, social signaling, or predator detection. Alternative explanatory models predict that dichromatic and trichromatic phenotypes are each suited to distinct tasks. To conclusively evaluate these models, one must determine whether proposed visual advantages translate into differential fitness of trichromatic and dichromatic individuals. We tested whether color vision phenotype is a significant predictor of female fitness in a population of wild capuchins, using longterm 26 years survival and fertility data. We found no advantage to trichromats over dichromats for three fitness measures fertility rates, offspring survival and maternal survival. This finding suggests that a selective mechanism other than heterozygote advantage is operating to maintain the color vision polymorphism. We propose that attention be directed to field testing the alternative mechanisms of balancing selection proposed to explain opsin polymorphism nichedivergence, frequencydependence and mutual benefit of association. This is the first indepth, longterm study examining the effects of color vision variation on survival and reproductive success in a naturallyoccurring population of primates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".