Cited by 32Animal Behavior and ReproductionDiptera species taxonomy and behaviorLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy

Love at first flight: wing interference patterns are species‐specific and sexually dimorphic in blowflies (Diptera: Calliphoridae)

Open access
Butterworth, Nathan J., White, Thomas E., Byrne, Phillip G., Wallman, James F.·2021·Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Wing interference patterns (WIPs) are stable structural colours displayed on insect wings which are only visible at specific viewing geometries and against certain backgrounds. These patterns are widespread among flies and wasps, and growing evidence suggests that they may function as species‐ and sex‐specific mating cues in a range of taxa. As such, it is expected that WIPs should differ between species and show clear sexual dimorphisms. However, the true extent to which WIPs vary between species, sexes and individuals is currently unclear, as previous studies have only taken a qualitative approach, without considering how WIPs might be perceived by the insect. Here, we perform the first quantitative analysis of inter‐ and intra‐specific variation in WIPs across seven Australian species of the blowfly genus Chrysomya . Using multispectral digital imaging and a tentative model of blowfly colour vision, we provide quantitative evidence that WIPs are species‐specific, highlight that the extent of divergence is greater in males than in females and demonstrate sexual dimorphisms in several species. These data suggest that WIPs have diversified substantially in blowflies as a result of either sexual or ecological selection.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jeb.13759

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Butterworth, N. J., White, T. E., Byrne, P. G., & Wallman, J. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Technology Sydney (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • University of Wollongong (AU)
Corresponding author
Butterworth, Nathan J.
Venue
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
Published
2021-01-27
Volume
34
Issue
3
Pages
558-570
ISSN
  • 1010-061X (ISSN-L)
  • 1420-9101
OpenAlex
W3123227311
Cited by
32
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Evolutionary Biology (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
Funders
Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Diptera species taxonomy and behavior
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Lepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Keywords
wing interference patterns, structural color, Chrysomya, Calliphoridae, sexual dimorphism, species-specific signals, mating cues, multispectral imaging, sexual selection
MeSH terms
Calliphoridae, Animals, Female, Male, Pigmentation, Selection, Genetic, Sexual Behavior, Animal, Sex Characteristics, Species Specificity, Wings, Animal

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