Hemipenes eversion behavior: a new form of communication in two <i>Liolaemus</i> lizards (Iguania: Liolaemidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Males of several animals have intromittent organs and may use these in a communicative context during sexual or intrasexual interactions. In some lizards, hemipenes eversion behavior have been observed, and the aim of this study is to find out whether this behavior is functionally significant under a communicative approach. Here, we investigated the eversion of hemipenes in the Light Blue Lizard (Liolaemus coeruleus Cei and Ortiz-Zapata, 1983) and in the Valley Lizard (Liolaemus quilmes Etheridge, 1993) by filming the response of male focal lizards in different experimental settings: (i) an agonistic context, i.e., with a conspecific male, (ii) a sexual context, i.e., with a conspecific female, and (iii) a control treatment, i.e., without a treatment lizard. In both species, focal lizards showed this behavior only in an agonistic context, with interspecific differences as follows. Liolaemus coeruleus has longer times until eversion and dragging of hemipenes; however, it has shorter time of eversion and exposition of the hemipenes. Liolaemus quilmes has the opposite pattern compared with L. coeruleus. These indicate that eversion of the hemipenes can act as a visual display and as a signal of aggressive behavior towards conspecific rival males. The present study offers a new behavioral perspective on the use of masculine genitalia in lizards.
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".