Body size affects the evolution of hidden colour signals in moths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many cryptic prey have also evolved hidden contrasting colour signals which are displayed to would-be predators. Given that these hidden contrasting signals may confer additional survival benefits to the prey by startling/intimidating predators, it is unclear why they have evolved in some species, but not in others. Here, we have conducted a comparative phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of colour traits in the family Erebidae (Lepidoptera), and found that the hidden contrasting colour signals are more likely to be found in larger species. To understand why this relationship occurs, we present a general mathematical model, demonstrating that selection for a secondary defence such as deimatic display will be stronger in large species when (i) the primary defence (crypsis) is likely to fail as its body size increases and/or (ii) the secondary defence is more effective in large prey. To test the model assumptions, we conducted behavioural experiments using a robotic moth which revealed that survivorship advantages were higher against wild birds when the moth has contrasting hindwings and large size. Collectively, our results suggest that the evolutionary association between large size and hidden contrasting signals has been driven by a combination of the need for a back-up defence and its efficacy.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".