Functional morphology of tegmina-based stridulation in the relict species<i>Cyphoderris monstrosa</i>(Orthoptera: Ensifera: Prophalangopsidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male grigs, bush-crickets and field crickets produce mating calls by tegminal stridulation: the scraping together of modified forewings functioning as sound generators. Bush- (Tettigoniidae) and field-crickets (Gryllinae) diverged some 240 million years ago, with each lineage developing unique characteristics in wing morphology and the associated mechanics of stridulation. The grigs (Prophalangopsidae), a relict lineage more closely related to bush-crickets than to field-crickets, are believed to retain plesiomorphic features of wing morphology. The wing cells widely involved in sound production, such as the harp and mirror, are comparatively small, poorly delimited and/or partially filled with cross-veins. Such morphology is similarly observed in the earliest stridulating ensiferans, for which stridulatory mechanics remains poorly understood. The grigs, therefore, are of major importance to investigate the early evolutionary stages of tegminal stridulation, a critical innovation in the evolution of the Orthoptera. The aim of this study is to appreciate the degree of specialisation on grig forewings, through identification of sound radiating area areas and their properties. For well-grounded comparisons, homologies in wing venation (and associated areas) of grigs and bush-crickets are re-evaluated. Then, using direct evidence, this study confirms the mirror cell, in association with two other areas (termed ‘neck’ and ‘pre-mirror’), as the acoustic resonator in the grig Cyphoderris monstrosa. Despite the use of largely symmetrical resonators, as found in field-crickets, analogous features of stridulatory mechanics are observed between C. monstrosa and bush-crickets. Both morphology and function in grigs represents transitional stages between unspecialised forewings and derived conditions observed in modern 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) | 0.001 | 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".