Incidence of dart shooting, sperm delivery, and sperm storage in natural populations of the simultaneously hermaphroditic land snail<i>Arianta arbustorum</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In several families of terrestrial pulmonates, simultaneously hermaphroditic animals form a sharp, hard, calcified or chitinous structure (the so-called love dart) in the female part of their reproductive organs. The dart is used to pierce the body of the mating partner during courtship. The adaptive significance of this peculiar behaviour is still little understood. We examined dart shooting, autosperm delivery, and allosperm storage in three natural populations of the simultaneously hermaphroditic land snail Arianta arbustorum in the Austrian Alps. Twenty-six (30.2%) of 86 copulating snails used their dart. The frequency of dart shooting tended to vary among populations. There was no reciprocity in dart shooting: individuals shot their dart independently of the behaviour of the mating partner. The number of spermatozoa delivered ranged from 522 000 to 4 238 000 (mean 1 706 000). The occurrence of dart shooting was related to neither the number of sperm delivered nor the number received from the partner. The occurrence of dart shooting was not influenced by the amount of allosperm from previous matings stored in the spermatheca of the dart shooters in two populations. In the third population, however, dart shooters had stored more allosperm in their spermatheca than non-shooters. The number of sperm received was not correlated with the size of the donor or the size of the recipient, indicating that snails do not allocate more sperm to larger partners. Experimental results showed that snails which mated under laboratory conditions did not differ in dart-shooting frequency from snails which mated in the wild.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".