Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poecilogony is a polymorphism of sexual development in some marine invertebrates, in which both feeding and non-feeding or planktonic and benthic larvae are produced. Since the original report on poecilogony by Gaird in 1905, a good number of such species have been recognized. Upon close examination, however, Hoagland and Roberston (1988) have found that almost all the 64 species reported to be poecilogonous are in fact a result of miss-identification of species or due to laboratory disturbance. To be a poecilogonous species, a different mode of development has to be found from sibling offspring of a single female, or from different individuals of a single biological species, and the different modes of development cannot be altered by disturbance in laboratory handling. This being the case, there are only a few known species which are poecilogonous. As a reproductive strategy poecilogony appears to have the advantages of both the commonly recognized patterns of development, short planktonic or benthic development (without planktonic larvae) and long planktonic development (broadcaster, with planktonic larvae). The former allows immediate recruitment to the parental habitats for fast population growth and the latter provides some degree of dispersal and gene flow. In this paper, we briefly review the reproduction and larval development of three poecilogonous species (Haminaea callidegenita, Streblospio benedicti and Capitella sp.) and pose the following questions: 1) Why are the currently known examples of poecilogonous species found only in polychaetes and opisthobranchs? 2) Why are poecilogonous animals predominately located on mud flats? 3) If poecilogony is such a good reproductive strategy, why don't we see it in more species? We reasoned that polychaetes and opisthobranchs may be genetically predisposed for more flexible reproduction, and that the mud flat is among the most dynamic marine habitat, exerting greater selective pressure favoring polymorphism of reproduction than that of other habitats. We reasoned also that there may be more such species which can only be discovered through intensive and long term research on the reproductive biology of invertebrates on mud flats.
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) | 1.000 | 1.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".