Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38951581›Full record

ArticleCommunications biology2024

Male and female contributions to diversity among birdwing butterfly images.

Jennifer F Hoyal Cuthill, Nicholas Guttenberg, Blanca Huertas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Opportunities and Challenges in Applying AI to Evolutionary Morphology.Integrative organismal biology (Oxford, England) · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jennifer F Hoyal CuthillSchool of Life Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester, UK. j.hoyal-cuthill@essex.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3139-9750
Nicholas GuttenbergCross Labs, Cross Compass Ltd, Tokyo, Japan.
Blanca HuertasDepartment of Science, Natural History Museum, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) newly enables tests for higher inter-species diversity in visible phenotype (disparity) among males versus females, predictions made from Darwinian sexual selection versus Wallacean natural selection, respectively. Here, we use ML to quantify variation across a sample of > 16,000 dorsal and ventral photographs of the sexually dimorphic birdwing butterflies (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Validation of image embedding distances, learnt by a triplet-trained, deep convolutional neural network, shows ML can be used for automated reconstruction of phenotypic evolution achieving measures of phylogenetic congruence to genetic species trees within a range sampled among genetic trees themselves. Quantification of sexual disparity difference (male versus female embedding distance), shows sexually and phylogenetically variable inter-species disparity. Ornithoptera exemplify high embedded male image disparity, diversification of selective optima in fitted multi-peak OU models and accelerated divergence, with cases of extreme divergence in allopatry and sympatry. However, genus Troides shows inverted patterns, including comparatively static male embedded phenotype, and higher female than male disparity - though within an inferred selective regime common to these females. Birdwing shapes and colour patterns that are most phenotypically distinctive in ML similarity are generally those of males. However, either sex can contribute majoritively to observed phenotypic diversity among species.

Indexed as

ButterfliesAnimalsBiological EvolutionFemaleMachine LearningMalePhenotypePhylogenySex CharacteristicsWings, Animal

Identifiers

PMID38951581
PMCPMC11217504

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.