Contrasting sexual selection on males and females in a role‐reversed swarming dance fly, <i>Rhamphomyia longicauda</i> Loew (Diptera: Empididae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there are several hypotheses for sex-specific ornamentation, few studies have measured selection in both sexes. We compare sexual selection in male and female dance flies, Rhamphomyia longicauda (Diptera: Empididae). Swarming females display size-enhancing abdominal sacs, enlarged wings and decorated tibiae, and compete for nuptial gifts provided by males. Males preferentially approach large females, but the nature of selection and whether it is sex-specific are unknown. We found contrasting sexual selection for mating success on structures shared by males and females. In females, long wings and short tibiae were favoured, whereas males with short wings and long tibiae had a mating advantage. There was no assortative mating. Females occupying potentially advantageous swarm positions were large and, in contrast to selection for mating success, tended to have larger tibiae than those of rivals. We discuss our findings in the context of both the mating biology of dance flies, and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in general.
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".