The evolution of sanguivory in vampire bats: origins and convergences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood-feeding (sanguivory) has evolved more than two dozen times among birds, fishes, insects, arachnids, molluscs, crustaceans, and annelids; however, among mammals, it is restricted to the vampire bats. Here, the authors revisit the question of how it evolved in that group. Evidence to date suggests that the ancestors of phyllostomids were insectivorous, and that carnivory, omnivory, and nectarivory evolved among phyllostomids after vampire bats diverged. Frugivory likely also evolved after vampire bats diverged, but the phylogeny is ambiguous on that point. However, vampire bats lack any genetic evidence of a frugivorous past, and the behavioural progression from frugivory to sanguivory is difficult to envision. Thus, the most parsimonious scenario is that sanguivory evolved in an insectivorous ancestor to vampire bats via ectoparasite-eating, wound-feeding, or some combination of the two—all feeding habits found among blood-feeding birds today. Comparing vampire bats with other sanguivores, the authors find several remarkable examples of convergence. Further, it was found that blood-feeding has been ca. 50 times more likely to evolve in a vertebrate lineage than in an invertebrate one. The authors hypothesize that this difference exists because vertebrates are more likely than invertebrates to have the biochemical necessities required to assimilate the components of vertebrate blood.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".