Additive genetic variation in the craniofacial skeleton of baboons (genus <i>Papio</i>) and its relationship to body and cranial size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Determining the genetic architecture of quantitative traits and genetic correlations among them is important for understanding morphological evolution patterns. We address two questions regarding papionin evolution: (1) what effect do body and cranial size, age, and sex have on phenotypic (VP) and additive genetic (VA) variation in baboon crania, and (2) how might additive genetic correlations between craniofacial traits and body mass affect morphological evolution? Materials and Methods We use a large captive pedigreed baboon sample to estimate quantitative genetic parameters for craniofacial dimensions (EIDs). Our models include nested combinations of the covariates listed above. We also simulate the correlated response of a given EID due to selection on body mass alone. Results Covariates account for 1.2–91% of craniofacial VP. EID VA decreases across models as more covariates are included. The median genetic correlation estimate between each EID and body mass is 0.33. Analysis of the multivariate response to selection reveals that observed patterns of craniofacial variation in extant baboons cannot be attributed solely to correlated response to selection on body mass, particularly in males. Discussion Because a relatively large proportion of EID VA is shared with body mass variation, different methods of correcting for allometry by statistically controlling for size can alter residual VP patterns. This may conflate direct selection effects on craniofacial variation with those resulting from a correlated response to body mass selection. This shared genetic variation may partially explain how selection for increased body mass in two different papionin lineages produced remarkably similar craniofacial phenotypes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".