Why the Long “Horns”? Fine‐Scale Morphology Suggests Tactile Demands Contributed to the Exaggeration of Male Longhorned Beetle Antennae (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Insect antennae are covered in hairlike sensilla that detect diverse environmental cues. Selection on these functions has produced a bewildering variety of antennal forms, including many examples of sexual dimorphism (SD). Antenna length SD is particularly common, but poorly understood, in longhorned beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Extremely elongate male antennae may extend the reach of individuals searching for mates, enabling rapid recognition via antennal contact. Alternatively, they may increase sensitivity to airborne pheromones by bearing more olfactory sensilla. We tested these hypotheses by modeling sensillum distributions and abundances across species and sexes of Anoplistes, a cerambycid genus with extensive variation in antenna length and SD. We found limited evidence that olfactory sensillum abundance scales with antenna segment length; instead, mechano‐ and contact chemosensory sensilla cluster near the antenna tip, consistent with contact‐mediated mate recognition. If the tip segment serves an important tactile role, that may explain why it is exceptionally elongated in males of several species with long, sexually dimorphic antennae. In other Anoplistes species with strong antennal SD, however, all segments exhibit similar levels of dimorphism. Collectively, our results suggest that alternative pathways to antenna SD evolved rapidly in Anoplistes, perhaps due to different patterns of selection on tactile sensation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".