Sexual dimorphism in the parasitic snail <i>Nanobalcis worsfoldi</i>: a histological and morphometric approach with insights for the family Eulimidae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual dimorphism has long been stressed as a remarkable characteristic of Eulimidae snails. This idea is so common for this family that, even without information on the soft parts, some species were already identified as male or female, as observed in Nanobalcis worsfoldi Warén, 1990. Here, we investigated whether larger and smaller individuals of N. worsfoldi are female and male, respectively, and what are the most useful characteristics to differentiate the sexes. We analyzed shell morphology and morphometry, along with coloration of the soft parts of large and small individuals, and crosschecked our findings through histological analysis. Our results confirmed that (i) larger and smaller individuals are females and males, respectively; (ii) shell morphology is not useful, while morphometry is important to address sexual dimorphism; (iii) since shell length and width showed the most remarkable differences, they are considered the best parameters to predict the sex. Furthermore, conchological characteristics associated with histological analysis suggest that this species could be the first non-sessile eulimid known as a sequential hermaphrodite (protandric) with environmental sex determination, but this remains to be confirmed. Considering that most studies on eulimids are based on shells, the morphometric parameters used here may support future ecological/biological analyses in the family, such as parasitological prevalence, or parasitic burden related to sex.
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) | 0.001 | 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".