Equal fitness among alternative mating strategies in a harem polygynous insect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternative mating strategies are widespread among animal taxa, with strategies controlled by a genetic polymorphism (Mendelian strategy) being rarer in nature than condition-dependent developmental strategies. Mendelian strategies are predicted to have equal average fitnesses and the proportion of offspring produced by a strategy should equal the equilibrium proportion of individuals representing the strategy in a population. Developmental strategies are not expected to produce offspring in equilibrium proportions; however, whether the alternative phenotypes should have equal average fitness is debated. The Wellington tree wētā ( Hemideina crassidens ) (Orthoptera: Anostostomatidae) is a harem polygynous insect in which intense sexual competition has favoured the evolution of three alternative mating strategies that differ in weapon size and the ability to fight for control of harems. Here, we use molecular genotyping to test the hypothesis that the alternative strategies in this species are maintained by having equal relative fitness and that morphs produce offspring in equilibrium proportions. As expected, the average relative fitness of the three strategies did not significantly differ and the proportion of offspring produced by each morph is equal to the frequency of that morph in the population. Our results support the hypothesis that the alternative male morphs in H. crassidens represent Mendelian strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 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".