Do hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) sound like the Hymenoptera they morphologically resemble?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has long been recognized that many hoverfly species (Diptera: Syrphidae) mimic the morphological appearance of defended Hymenoptera, such as wasps and bees. However, it has also been repeatedly suggested that some mimetic hoverflies respond with sounds on attack that resemble the warning or startle sounds of their hymenopteran models. In this study, we set out to quantitatively compare the spectral characteristics of the sounds produced by a range of nonmimetic flies, wasps, bumblebees, honeybees, and their hoverfly mimics when they were artificially attacked. The sounds made by wasps and honeybees after simulated attacks were statistically distinguishable from their hoverfly mimics. Bumblebee models of their hoverfly mimics share some similarities in the sound they produce on attack, but they were no closer acoustically to their model than a range of other hoverfly species that morphologically resemble other models. All the mimetic hoverflies tested in this study tended to sound similar to one another, regardless of the model they resemble morphologically. Overall, we found little evidence that mimetic hoverflies sound like their hymenopteran models on attack, and we question whether acoustic mimicry has evolved in this complex.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".