Association of Mandible Shape and Nesting Material in <I>Osmia</I> Panzer (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae): A Morphometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We combined methods of geometric morphometrics and phylogenetically controlled comparisons to examine the relationship between the shape of mandibles and material used to construct the nest for 5 Osmia Panzer species. We measured leaf- and mud-using species from 2 subgenera: in the subgenus Osmia,O. lignaria Cresson (mud-user), O. cornuta Latreille (mud-user) and O. ribifloris Cockerell (leaf-user), and in the subgenus Centrosmia,O. tanneri Sandhouse (mud-user), and O. bucephela Cresson (leaf-user). Landmark-based geometric morphometrics and multivariate statistics provided a way to compare mandible shapes, distill major shape differences and visualize mandible regions that differed most among bee species. Mandible shape differed significantly among all species based on paired comparisons of Mahalanobis distances. Principal component analysis of the shape variables (relative warps analysis) revealed greater similarity between the 2 leaf-using bees, than among the mud-users. There were however, no consistent differences between these mud- and leaf-using species. Testing with two-way multivariate analysis of variance showed that the differences in shape between the leaf- and mud-using species depended on the subgenus. A broad proximate bite surface characterized leaf-using species. No such trait was common to mud-using species. Mandibles of leaf-using species may vary less because of selection on shape, or because of functional constraints for shearing and macerating leaf material; both constraints are absent in mud-using species. Mandibles of mud-using bees may respond more to selection imposed by other aspects of bee biology.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".