MULTIPLE ORIGINS OF SEX CHROMOSOME FUSIONS CORRELATED WITH CHIASMA LOCALIZATION IN<i>HABRONATTUS</i>JUMPING SPIDERS (ARANEAE: SALTICIDAE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entelegyne spiders rarely show fusions yielding neo-Y chromosomes, which M. J. D. White attributed to a constraint in spiders, namely their proximal chiasma localization acting to upset meiotic segregation in males with fusions. Of the 75 taxa of Habronattus and outgroups studied, 47 have X1 X2 0 sex chromosomes in males, 10 have X1 X2 Y, 15 have X1 X2 X3 Y, 2 have X0, and one has both X1 X2 0 and X1 X2 X3 Y. Chromosome numbers and behavior suggest neo-Ys formed by an autosome-X fusion to make X1 X2 Y, with a second fusion to an autosome to make X1 X2 X3 Y. Phylogeny shows at least 8-15 gains (or possibly some losses) of neo-Y (i.e., X-autosome fusions), a remarkable number for such a small clade. In contrast to the many X-autosome fusions, at most one autosome-autosome fusion is indicated. Origins of neo-Y are correlated significantly with distal localization of chiasmata, supporting White's hypothesis that evolution of neo-Y systems is facilitated by looser pairing (distal chiasmata) at meiosis. However, an alternative (or contributing) explanation for the correlation is that X-autosome fusions were selected to permit isolation of male-favored alleles to the neo-Y chromosome, aided by distal chiasmata limiting recombination. This intralocus sexual conflict hypothesis could explain both the many X-autosome fusions, and the stunning complexity of male Habronattus courtship displays.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".