Sex Chromosomes and Sexual Selection in Poeciliid Fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose that the evolution of female preferences can be strongly influenced by linkage of attractive male traits to the Y chromosome and female preferences to the X chromosome in male heterogametic species. Such linkage patterns are predicted by models of the evolution of sexually antagonistic genes. Subsequent recombination of attractive male characters from the Y to the X would create physical linkage between attractive male trait and preference. A literature survey shows that Y linkage of potentially sexually antagonistic traits is common in poeciliid fishes and other species with sex chromosomes that are not well differentiated, but may also occur in taxa with degenerate Y chromosomes. In the guppy, attractive male traits are primarily Y and X linked; a literature review of the inheritance of sex-limited attractive male characters suggests that 16 are Y linked, 24 recombine between the X and Y, two are X linked, and two are autosomal. Crosses and backcrosses between high female preference (Endler's live-bearers) and low female preference (Rio San Miguel) guppy populations show that this character has a strong additive genetic component and that it will be possible to investigate the physical linkage of male and female sexually selected characters in this species through mapping studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".