Rensching cats and dogs: feeding ecology and fecundity trends explain variation in the allometry of sexual size dimorphism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tendency for sexual size dimorphism (SSD) to increase with body mass in taxa where males are larger, and to decrease when females are larger, is known as Rensch's rule. In mammals, where the trend occurs, it is believed to be the result of a competitive advantage for larger males, while female mass is constrained by the energetics of reproduction. Here, we examine the allometry of SSD within the Felidae and Canidae, demonstrating distinctly different patterns: in felids, there is positive allometric scaling, while there is no trend in canids. We hypothesize that feeding ecology, via its effect on female spacing patterns, is responsible for the difference; larger male mass may be advantageous only where females are dispersed such that males can defend access to them. This is supported by the observation that felids are predominately solitary, and all are obligate carnivores. Similarly, carnivorous canids are more sexually dimorphic than insectivores and omnivores, but carnivory does not contribute to a Rensch effect as dietary variation occurs across the mass spectrum. The observed inter-familial differences are also consistent with reduced constraints on female mass in the canids, where litter size increases with body mass, versus no observable allometry in the felids.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".