Reproductive behavior of Leptodactylus mystacinus (Anura, Leptodactylidae) with notes on courtship call of other Leptodactylus species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here we present data on the reproductive behavior of Leptodactylus mystacinus (Burmeister, 1861), including details on courtship behavior. We also describe and compared the courtship calls of L. mystacinus, L. furnarius Sazima & Bokermann, 1978 and Leptodactylus sp. (L. aff. andreae). Field works were conducted in Uberlândia (central Brazil). During courtship, a female approaches a calling male and is led to a previously excavated chamber; a female can approach a silent male that beat his hands and/or feet on the ground as well. The courtship call of L. mystacinus consists of one single arch-shaped note (duration = 0.04 s) repeated 258 times per minute; the courtship calls of L. furnarius (0.06 s, 84 times per minute) and Leptodactylus sp. (0.15 s, 5 times per minute) also are arch-shaped. The courtship behavior of L. mystacinus is similar to that of other species of the L. fuscus (Schneider, 1799) group; unique to it is that males can beat his hands and/or feet on the ground while courting. The male behavior of conducting the female to a previously excavates chamber and the arch-shaped courtship call may represent other shared derived features of members of the L. fuscus group, including the former Adenomera species.
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) | 0.003 | 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".