Sexual selection on multiple female ornaments in dance flies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex-specific ornaments typically occur in males, but they can also develop in females. While there are several models concerning the evolution of male-specific ornaments, it is not clear how, or under what circumstances, those models apply to female-specific ornament evolution. Here, we present a manipulative field experiment that explores the theoretical ‘trait space’ of multiple female-specific ornaments to study how these unusual traits evolved. We measured the attractiveness of two female-specific ornaments (pinnate leg scales and inflatable abdominal sacs) in the dance fly Rhamphomyia longicauda in a wild mating swarm. We found significant directional preferences for larger ornaments of both types; however, variation in one of the ornaments (abdominal sacs) was almost three times more effective at improving attractiveness. The abdominal ornament was consistently effective in increasing attractiveness to males regardless of leg ornament expression, while leg ornament size was only effective if abdominal ornaments were very small. These results are consistent with predictions from a sexual conflict model of ornament expression in supporting the probable role of deception in the evolution of female-specific ornaments among dance flies. Sexual conflict can be an important force in generating elaborate sex-specific ornaments in females as well as males.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".