THE EVOLUTION OF ARMAMENT STRENGTH: EVIDENCE FOR A CONSTRAINT ON THE BITING PERFORMANCE OF CLAWS OF DUROPHAGOUS DECAPODS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance data for the claws of six sympatric species of Cancer crabs confirmed a puzzling pattern reported previously for two other decapod crustaceans (stone crabs, Menippe mercenaria, and lobsters, Homarus americanus): Although biting forces increased, maximum muscle stresses (force per unit area) declined with increasing claw size. The negative allometry of muscle stress and the stress at a given claw size were fairly consistent within and among Cancer species despite significant differences in adult body size and relative claw size, but were not consistent among decapod genera. Therefore, claw height can be used as a reliable predictor of maximum biting force for the genus Cancer, but must be used with caution as a predictor of maximum biting force in wider evolutionary and biogeographical comparisons of decapods. The decline in maximum muscle stress with increasing claw size in Cancer crabs contrasts with the pattern in several other claw traits. Significantly, three traits that affect maximal biting force increased intraspecifically with increasing claw size: relative claw size, mechanical advantage, and sarcomere length of the closer muscle. Closer apodeme area and angle of pinnation of the closer muscle fibers varied isometrically with claw size. The concordant behavior of these traits suggests selection for higher biting forces in larger crabs. The contrast between the size dependence of muscle stress (negative allometry) and the remaining claw traits (isometry or positive allometry) strongly suggests that an as yet unidentified constraint impairs muscle performance in larger claws. The negative allometry of muscle stress in two distantly related taxa (stone crabs and lobsters) further suggests this constraint may be widespread in decapod crustaceans. The implications of this performance constraint for the evolution of claw size and the "arms-race" between decapod predators and their hard-shelled prey is discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".