Advergence in Müllerian mimicry: the case of the poison dart frogs of Northern Peru revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether the evolution of similar aposematic signals in different unpalatable species (i.e. Müllerian mimicry) is because of phenotypic convergence or advergence continues to puzzle scientists. The poison dart frog Ranitomeya imitator provides a rare example in support of the hypothesis of advergence: this species was believed to mimic numerous distinct model species because of high phenotypic variability and low genetic divergence among populations. In this study, we test the evidence in support of advergence using a population genetic framework in two localities where R. imitator is sympatric with different model species, Ranitomeya ventrimaculata and Ranitomeya variabilis. Genetic analyses revealed incomplete sorting of mitochondrial haplotypes between the two model species. These two species are also less genetically differentiated than R. imitator populations on the basis of both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA comparisons. The genetic similarity between the model species suggests that they have either diverged more recently than R. imitator populations or that they are still connected by gene flow and were misidentified as different species. An analysis of phenotypic variability indicates that the model species are as variable as R. imitator. These results do not support the hypothesis of advergence by R. imitator. Although we cannot rule out phenotypic advergence in the evolution of Müllerian mimicry, this study reopens the discussion regarding the direction of the evolution of mimicry in the R. imitator system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".