Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 256

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Inferring Developmental Modularity from Morphological Integration: Analysis of Individual Variation and Asymmetry in Bumblebee Wings

Klingenberg, Christian Peter, Badyaev, Alexander V., Sowry, Susanna M., Beckwith, Nathan J.·2001·The American Naturalist

Abstract

Organisms are built from distinct modules, which are internally coherent but flexible in their relationships among one another. We examined morphological variation within and between two candidate modules: the fore- and hindwings of bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus empatiens). We used the techniques of geometric morphometrics (Procrustes superimposition) to analyze the variation of landmark configurations in fore- and hindwings. Regression was used to correct for size-related shape variation (allometry). Principal component analysis revealed patterns of variation that were remarkably similar for individual variation and fluctuating asymmetry (FA). Because covariation of FA among parts must be due to direct transmission of the developmental perturbations causing FA, this agreement of patterns suggests that much of individual variation is also due to direct developmental interactions within each developing wing. Moreover, partial least squares analysis indicated that the patterns of shape covariation between fore- and hindwings were nearly the same as the patterns of within-wing variation. Shape covariation of FA was only found in bees that had been reared under elevated CO(2) concentration but not in bees from the control treatment, suggesting that the mechanisms of developmental interactions between fore- and hindwings are related to gas exchange. We conclude that the fore- and hindwings are developmental modules that maintain internal coherence through direct developmental interactions and are connected to each other only by relatively few links that use the system of interactions within modules.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/317002

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 55 references

Cited by

See all 256

Metadata

Authors
Klingenberg, C. P., Badyaev, A. V., Sowry, S. M., & Beckwith, N. J.
Venue
The American Naturalist
Published
2001-01
Volume
157
Issue
1
Pages
11-23
ISSN
  • 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5323
OpenAlex
W2144663154
Cited by
256
References
55
FWCI
20.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Inferring Developmental Modularity from Morphological Integration: Analysis of Individual Variation and Asymmetry in Bumblebee Wings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/317002
The paper
Klingenberg, C. P., Badyaev, A. V., Sowry, S. M., & Beckwith, N. J. (2001). Inferring Developmental Modularity from Morphological Integration: Analysis of Individual Variation and Asymmetry in Bumblebee Wings. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/317002

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.