The tail plays a major role in the differing manoeuvrability of two sibling species of mouse-eared bats (<i>Myotis myotis</i> and <i>Myotis blythii</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two sympatrically occurring bat species, the greater mouse-eared bat (Myotis myotis (Borkhausen, 1797)) and the lesser mouse-eared bat (Myotis blythii (Tomes, 1857)) (Chiroptera, Vespertillionidae), share numerous similarities in morphology, roosting behaviour, and echolocation and are often difficult to distinguish. However, despite these similarities, their foraging behaviour is noticeably different. Our aim was to examine the extent to which these different foraging strategies reflect morphological adaptation. We assessed whether the morphology of the wing, body, and tail differed between M. myotis and M. blythii. In addition, in a laboratory experiment involving an obstacle course, we compared differences in manoeuvrability by relating them to our morphological measurements. The two species differed in their overall size, wing-tip shape, and tail-to-body length ratio. The generally smaller sized M. blythii performed better in the obstacle course and was therefore considered to be more manoeuvrable. Although differences in wing-tip shape were observed, we found the most important characteristic affecting manoeuvrability in both species to be the tail-to-body length ratio. Additionally, when we compared two bats with injured wing membranes with unharmed bats of the same species, we found no difference in manoeuvrability, even when the wing shape was asymmetric. We therefore postulate that morphometric differences between the two species in their overall size and, more importantly, in their tail-to-body length ratio are the main physical characteristics providing proof of adaptation to different foraging and feeding strategies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".