MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sexual isolation and extreme morphological divergence in the Cumaná guppy: a possible case of incipient speciation

2004· article· en· W2133049020 on OpenAlexaff
Heather J. Alexander, Felix Breden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGuppyReproductive isolationPoeciliaSexual selectionEvolutionary biologyPopulationGenetic algorithmEcological speciationGenetic divergenceIncipient speciationZoologyMatingGenetic diversityGenetic variationGeneticsGene flowGeneFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theory predicts that sexual selection can promote the evolution of reproductive isolation and speciation. Those cases in which sexual selection has led to speciation should be characterized by significant differentiation in male display traits and correlated female preferences in the absence of post-zygotic isolation, accompanied by little genetic or other morphological differentiation. Previous evidence indicates that a cluster of populations of the guppy (Poecilia reticulata Peters) from Cumana, Venezuela, the 'Cumana guppy', differs significantly in female preferences from a nearby guppy population (A. Lindholm & F. Breden, Am. Nat., 160: 2002, S214). Here, we further document sexual isolation between these populations. In addition, these populations exhibit significant divergence in male display traits correlated to differences in between-population mating success, little mitochondrial genetic differentiation, and we find no evidence for genetic incompatibility between a Cumana population and several geographically isolated populations. These results suggest that divergent sexual selection has contributed to differentiation of the Cumana guppy, and this may be the first example of incipient speciation in the guppy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207