Maternal care in the Hemiptera: ancestry, alternatives, and current adaptive value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the Hemiptera as a model, this chapter develops an alternative hypothesis for the evolution of subsocial behavior, one that challenges the traditional view that maternal behavior is an exceptional and relatively recent evolutionary leap forward. Data are presented that support the argument that maternal care is not a recent behavioral innovation of the Arthropoda; indeed, it is a common phenomenon in phyla as primitive as the Cnidaria. Evidence that parental behavior has been a constant trait throughout the evolution of the Hemiptera is weak, but there is solid support for a claim of plesiomorphy in the Membracoidea, the Cimicomorpha, and the Pentatomoidea. Hemipteran maternal care is not a behavior restricted to occupants of unusually harsh environments and it does not appear to provide taxa that express it with superior survivorship or with an unusual capacity to radiate. Instead, maternal behavior is a trait fraught with ecological costs. When compared with females of related asocial taxa, mothers and the young they seek to protect are subject to increased exposure to predators, reduced fecundity, and lower intrinsic rates of natural increase. Maternal costs are so high that subsocial species have developed cost–reducing mechanisms such as egg–dumping, ant mutualism, and the avoidance of maternal risks during periods of high reproductive value. Through various permutations of clutch placement and size, most hemipterans have abandoned the maternal option in favor of dozens of alternatives that protect eggs from environmental dangers without loss of life or fecundity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".