Marginal Differentiation between the Sexual and General Carotenoid Pigmentation of Guppies (<i>Poecilia reticulata</i>) and a Possible Visual Explanation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the first detailed analysis of carotenoid pigmentation of the integument of guppies (Poecilia reticulata Peters), quantifying variation in carotenoid content and composition of wild guppies from three drainages on Trinidad (1) between the sexual and general pigmentation of males, (2) between the sexes, and (3) geographically in relation to carotenoid availability. We report that the carotenoid pigments in the integument of guppies are predominantly esters of tunaxanthin. The peak wavelength of carotenoids in the orange spots of males lay only ca. 2.8 nm higher than that of pigments outside of the orange spots, and the peak wavelength of carotenoids in the male whole integument does not differ from that in the female whole integument. Carotenoid composition of the general integument of females and the non-orange spot fraction of males, but not of the orange spot fraction of males, varied with diet, correlating with the ratio beta-carotene to lutein in the different streams. Male guppies deposit higher concentrations of carotenoids in their orange spots than in the rest of the integument (five to nine times higher), but not at the expense of the general integument, which was similarly endowed as the general integument of females, even in carotenoid-poor streams. Presumably males absorb/retain more pigments than females. Photoreceptor-based simulations suggest that tunaxanthin provides both greater brightness and chroma than would 4-keto-carotenoids such as astaxanthin.
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".