Digest: The evolution of sex‐specific mating preferences in <i>Drosophila</i> *
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do mating preferences evolve at the same rate in males and females? Yukilevich and Peterson (2019) found that among Drosophila species, male and female mate preferences evolved at different rates via distinct mechanisms. Rates of evolution were also affected by geographical proximity of species. In allopatric species, male and female mate preferences evolved at similar rates, while in sympatric species, female mate preferences developed more rapidly than that of males. Two important phenomena influencing speciation are the emergence of behavioral and anatomical phenotypes that prevent incipient populations from mating to produce viable, fertile offspring. For example, incompatible genital morphology can act as aversive stimuli, or even make mating impossible (Isaacson 2017; Masly 2012), whereas behavioral factors such as differing sexual cues and mating preferences often make heterospecifics appear less attractive than members of the same species. Traditionally, because females are the “choosier” sex, researchers assumed divergence in females’ mating preferences was the sole driver of sexual isolation (Kirkpatrick 1987). However, a growing body of work argues that male mating preferences also play a role in the sexual isolation of species as diverse as garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.; Shine et al. 2004), mosquito fish (Gambusia spp; Espinedo et al. 2010), and leaf beetles (Chrysochus spp; Peterson et al. 2007). While both male and female mate choice play a role in sexual isolation of species, the extent of each sex's contributions and the relative rates of evolution of mating preferences are less understood, particularly in the contexts of sympatry and allopatry.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".