Evolution of female ornamentation in dance flies: valuable gifts are worth dressing up for
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elaborate female ornaments are rare in nature. One explanation for this is that female investment in ornamentation may take away crucial resources from other costly life history traits, such as fecundity, for which there is likely to be a higher fitness return. However, this trade-off between ornaments and fecundity may be less severe in species where the males offer the female an edible nuptial gift during mating. The nutrition gained from mating may make attracting males with elaborate ornaments more cost-effective for the female. We investigated this link in dance flies in which there is large variation in nuptial gifts, as well as female ornaments. Our phylogenetic analysis showed that nuptial gift value is positively associated with the evolution of female ornaments. We found that species that lack nuptial gifts have no ornaments, and high levels of female ornamentation have evolved most frequently in species with reliable access to an edible nuptial gift with each mating. Our results also suggest that female ornaments have most likely evolved following the evolution of nuptial gifts. We argue that the added benefits from each mating have helped the females to overcome the costs associated with the development and maintenance of ornaments.
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".