No evidence that sexual selection is an ‘engine of speciation’ in birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sexual selection has been implicated as having a role in promoting speciation, as it should increase the rate of evolution of reproductive isolation, and there is some comparative evidence that sexual selection may be related to imbalances in clade size seen in resolved phylogenies. By employing a new comparative method we are able to investigate the role of sexual selection in explaining the patterns of species richness across birds. We used data for testes size as an index of post‐mating sexual selection, and sexual size dimorphism and sexual dichromatism as indices of pre‐mating sexual selection. These measures were obtained for 1031 species representing 467 genera. None of the variables investigated explained the patterns of species richness. As sexual selection may also increase extinction rates, the net effect on species richness in any given clade will depend on the balancing effects of sexual selection upon speciation and extinction rates. We suggest that variance across clades in this balance may have resulted in the lack of a relationship between species richness and sexual selection seen in birds.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".