Stabilizing sexual selection for female ornaments in a dance fly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ornamental traits function by improving attractiveness and are generally presumed to experience directional selection for mating success. However, given the greater investment of females in offspring than males, female-specific ornaments can in theory signal fecundity yet be constrained by fecundity costs. Theoretical work predicts that such constraints can lead to stabilizing selection via male choice for intermediately ornamented females. Female dance flies Rhamphomyia longicauda (Diptera: Empididae) display two female-specific ornaments in mating swarms - inflatable abdominal sacs and pinnate tibial scales. We investigated the intensity and form of sexual selection on female traits including ornaments and found no evidence for directional sexual selection. Instead, we found marginally nonsignificant quadratic selection for all three measures of ornament expression. Canonical analysis confirmed that the strongest vectors of nonlinear selection were associated with ornamental traits, although the significance of the quadratic coefficients associated with these vectors depended on the statistical approach. Direct Mitchell-Olds and Shaw tests for the location of the maximum fitted fitness value for both raw morphological traits and canonical axes revealed only one marginally nonsignificant result for the multivariate axis loading most heavily on pinnate leg scales. Together, these results provide the first tentative support for stabilizing selection on female-specific ornaments.
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".