Veiled preferences and cryptic female choice could underlie the origin of novel sexual traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Males in many species have elaborated sexual traits that females strongly prefer, and these traits often conspicuously differ among species. How novel preferences and traits originate, however, is a challenging evolutionary problem because the initial appearance of only the female preference or only the male trait should reduce the ability to find a suitable mate, which could reduce fitness for individuals possessing those novel alleles. Here, we present a hypothesis for how novel preferences, as well as the novel male traits that females prefer, can originate, be favoured and spread in polyandrous species. Novel preference mutations can arise as 'veiled preferences' that are not expressed when the corresponding male trait is not present in the population, allowing preferences to be hidden from selection, and thus persist. In those cases when a male trait is present, veiled preferences provide a selective advantage, and females disproportionately produce offspring from preferred males through either mate choice or cryptic female choice. This tips the fitness advantage for novel males, allowing both preference and trait to spread, and limiting selection against them in the absence of the corresponding trait or preference.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".