Hearing in Butterflies: Neurophysiological Characterization of the Auditory Afferents in Morpho Peleides (Nymphalidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many butterflies have well developed tympanal ears on their wings but little is known about what they are capable of hearing in their natural environments.The tympanal ear of many butterflies, including Morpho peleides, comprises an outer membrane and a conspicuous inner dome (tholus), both of which are innervated by two separate auditory nerve branches (NII and NIII) and their respective sensory organs.Using extracellular neurophysiological recordings, I explored how this morphology contributes to mechanical sound frequency and amplitude discrimination.I also show that the auditory nerves of M. peleides responded to playbacks of the broadband cyclic sounds produced passively during flight of blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata), as well as to the low frequency vocalizations of one of its main avian predators, the rufous-tailed jacamar (Galbula ruficauda), providing further evidence that butterflies and possibly other diurnal insects could be using their sense of hearing to detect and avoid avian predators.
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".