MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The fossil record of female sexual ornamentation in Empididae (Diptera: Empidoidea), with description of four new species

2024· article· en· W4403860330 on OpenAlexaff
Dale E. Greenwalt, Bradley J. Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenuePalaeoentomology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiptera species taxonomy and behavior
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFossil RecordPaleontologyBiologyZoologyEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Females of the subfamily Empidinae (Diptera: Empididae s.s.) often exhibit sexual ornamentation, an adaptation that, within the animal world at large, is most often associated with males, especially in vertebrates. Ornaments of female Empidinae include: 1) legs with rows of relatively large pennate scales, 2) enlarged and/or darkly pigmented wings and 3) inflated abdominal sacs. Ornamentation makes the females appear larger, a characteristic that may make them appear, albeit deceptively, more fecund, and therefore more attractive to potential mates. Given the rarity of female sexual ornamentation, these flies, particularly those of the tribe Empidini, have become a model system for study of this phenomenon. The family’s fossil record consists of 111 known occurrences including several genera from the middle Jurassic. This fossil record however is dominated by two genera, Empis and Rhamphomyia, which account for nearly 60% of all fossil occurrences. Unfortunately, there has been no fossil record of empidine sexual ornamentation other than pennate leg scales. Herein, we review this fossil record and describe the first empidine fossils, all from the Middle Eocene Kishenehn Formation, with enlarged and/or darkly pigmented wings, Rhamphomyia kitadai sp. nov. and R. brunnipennis sp. nov., and two new species of Rhamphomyia which display pennate leg scales, R. decens sp. nov. and R. pennipes sp. nov. Rhamphomyia enena Cockerell, 1921, the oldest known fossil that exhibits pennate leg scales, is redescribed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalaeoentomologySame topicDiptera species taxonomy and behaviorFrench-language works237,207