Mating and Sexual Selection in Empidine Dance Flies (Empididae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species whose behaviour or morphology diverges from typical patterns can provide unique insights on the evolutionary forces that promote diversity. Darwin recognised that while elaborate sexually selected traits mostly occurred among males, in a few species females possess such traits. Some species from the subfamily Empidinae (Diptera: Empididae) are among the animals that are often invoked to illustrate female ornaments. Empidines include taxa that exhibit varying levels of female ornament expression; some species possess multiple, elaborate female-specific ornaments while others have fewer and more modest adornments, and many species are altogether lacking discernible sexual ornamentation. This continuous variation in display traits in the Empidinae provides unique opportunities to explore the causes and consequences of sexually selected ornament expression. Here, we review the literature on sexual selection and mating systems in these flies and synthesise the evidence for various evolutionary forces that could conceivably create this impressive morphological and behavioural diversity, despite evolutionary constraints on female ornament exaggeration that help to explain its general rarity among animals. We also suggest some aspects of diversity that remain relatively unexplored or poorly understood, and close by offering suggestions for future research progress in the evolutionary ecology of mating behaviour among empidine flies.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".