Hybridization and transgressive exploration of colour pattern and wing morphology in <i>Heliconius</i> butterflies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hybridization can generate novel phenotypes distinct from those of parental lineages, a phenomenon known as transgressive trait variation. Transgressive phenotypes might negatively or positively affect hybrid fitness, and increase available variation. Closely related species of Heliconius butterflies regularly produce hybrids in nature, and hybridization is thought to play a role in the diversification of novel wing colour patterns despite strong stabilizing selection due to interspecific mimicry. Here, we studied wing phenotypes in first- and second-generation hybrids produced by controlled crosses between either two co-mimetic species of Heliconius or between two nonmimetic species. We quantified wing size, shape and colour pattern variation and asked whether hybrids displayed transgressive wing phenotypes. Discrete traits underlain by major-effect loci, such as the presence or absence of colour patches, generate novel phenotypes. For quantitative traits, such as wing shape or subtle colour pattern characters, hybrids only exceed the parental range in specific dimensions of the morphological space. Overall, our study addresses some of the challenges in defining and measuring phenotypic transgression for multivariate traits and our data suggest that the extent to which transgressive trait variation in hybrids contributes to phenotypic diversity depends on the complexity and the genetic architecture of the traits.
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".