Sexually antagonistic coevolution can explain female display signals and male sensory adaptations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence and diversity of female ornaments pose a challenge to evolutionary theory because males should prefer mates that spend resources on offspring rather than on ornaments. Among dance flies, there is extraordinary variation in sexual dimorphism. Females of many species have conspicuous ornaments (leg scales and inflatable abdominal sacs). Meanwhile, males of some species have exaggerated regions of their eyes with larger ommatidial facets that allow for regionally elevated photosensitivity and/or acuity. Here, we conduct a comparative study of these traits using both species descriptions available from the literature, as well as quantitative measures of eyes and ornaments from wild-caught flies. We show a conspicuous covariance across species between exaggerated male dorsal eye regions and the extent of female ornaments: species with highly ornamented females have males with more exaggerated eyes. We discuss this pattern in the context of competing hypotheses for the evolution of these traits and propose a plausible role for sexually antagonistic coevolution.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".