Xenophilic mating preferences among populations of the jumping spider Habronattus pugillis Griswold
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual selection is thought to have driven the diversification of courtship behavior and associated ornamentation between geographically isolated populations of the jumping spider Habronattus pugillis Griswold. In an attempt to understand the pathways of sexual selection during this diversification, we conducted reciprocal mating trials between two populations of H. pugillis (Santa Rita [SR] and Atascosa [AT]) that differ in both male courtship display and secondary sexual ornamentation. Observations of mating frequencies show a xenophilic mating preference in which SR females have a stronger response to AT males than to SR males, while AT females show no difference in mating frequency. These results are not consistent with a coevolutionary process in which male traits and female preferences evolve in concert, positively reinforcing each other. We discuss alternative pathways of sexual selection that may have acted in this system, including the possibility that female preferences and male traits have evolved antagonistically. In addition, we found that SR females spent a higher proportion of time prior to copulation visually attentive to AT males versus SR males. This difference in visual attention prior to copulation was not seen in AT females and may provide insights into our observations of xenophilic mating preference.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".