Alternative mating tactics in brown widow spiders: mating with or without male self-sacrifice does not affect the copulatory mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Male self-sacrifice during mating is one of the most extreme forms of male reproductive investment. In two species of widow spiders (genus Latrodectus), males trigger sexual cannibalism by "somersaulting" into the fangs of the female after copulatory coupling is achieved. In this position, sperm are transferred with the secondary sexual organs, the transformed pedipalps of the male, while the female starts feeding on his opisthosoma. In Latrodectus hasselti and L. geometricus, matings also occur with subadult females (i.e. females in their last moulting stage) but during these "immature" matings, males do not perform the somersault. Consequently, mating positions differ dramatically between matings with adult and subadult females. Here, we investigate the copulatory mechanism of adult and immature matings in the brown widow L. geometricus by shock-freezing copulating pairs and 3D X-ray microtomography. We hypothesize differences in the copulatory mechanism and depth of insertion of the sperm transfer structures between the two mating tactics. RESULTS: We found that the copulatory mechanism does not differ between adult and immature mating tactics and do not depend on whether a somersault occurs. Furthermore, the somersault does not improve intromission depth of the male sperm transfer organs into the female sperm storage organs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the somersault has evolved solely due to the selective advantages of sexual cannibalism. The costs and benefits of both mating tactics need to be further explored using paternity studies in order to understand their relative adaptive value.
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".