Phylogeny, environment and sexual communication across the <i>Drosophila</i> genus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social behaviour emerges from the local environment but is constrained by the animal's life history and its evolutionary lineage. In this perspective, we consider the genus Drosophila and provide an overview of how these constraints can shape how individuals interact. Our focus is restricted to visual and chemical signals and how their use varies across species during courtship - currently the only social behaviour well-studied across many Drosophila species. We broadly categorize species into four climatic groups - cosmopolitan, tropical, temperate and arid - which serve as discussion points as we review comparative behavioural and physiological studies and relate them to the abiotic conditions of a species environment. We discuss how the physiological and behavioural differences among many fly species may reflect life history differences as much as, or even more than, differences in phylogeny. This perspective serves not only to summarize what has been studied across drosophilids, but also to identify questions and outline gaps in the literature worth pursuing for progressing the understanding of behavioural evolution in Drosophila.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".