Evolution of female mating preferences in stalk-eyed flies

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 9, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 525-533

  Wilkinson, Gerald S ^a   Kahler, Heidi ^a   Baker, Richard H ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b DIVISION OF INVERTEBRATE ZOOLOGY   (United States)

^c YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Diopsidae; Mate choice; Sensory bias; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTION; FLY; MATE CHOICE; SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERISTICS; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM;

CYRTODIOPSIS DALMANNI; CYRTODIOPSIS QUINQUEGUTTATA; CYRTODIOPSIS WHITEI; DIOPSIDAE; DIPTERA;

EID: 0031721182     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/9.5.525     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Andersson M, 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
2. Basolo AL, 1990. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250:808-810.
3. Basolo AL, 1995. Phylogenetic evidence for the role of a pre-existing bias in sexual selection. Proc R Soc Lond B 259:307-311.
4. Basolo AL, 1996. The phylogenetic distribution of a female preference. Syst Biol 45:290-307.
5. Basolo AL, Endler JA, 1995. Sensory biases and the evolution of sensory systems. Trends Ecol Evol 10:489.
6. Becker WA, 1975. Manual of quantitative genetics. Pullman: Washington State University Press.
7. Boake CRB, 1989. Repeatability: its role in evolutionary studies of mating behavior. Evol Ecol 3:173-182.
8. Bremer K, 1994. Branch support and tree stability. Cladistics 10:295-304.
9. Burkhardt D de la Motte I, 1983. How stalk-eyed flies eye stalk-eyed flies: observations and measurements of the eyes of Cyrtodiopsis whitei (Diopsidae, Diptera). J Comp Physiol 151:407-421.
10. Burkhardt D, de la Motte I, 1985. Selective pressures, variability, and sexual dimorphism in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Naturwissenschaften 72:204-206.
11. Burkhardt D, de la Motte I, 1988. Big 'antlers' are favoured: female choice in stalk-eyed flies (Diptera, Insecta), field collected harems and laboratory experiments. J Comp Physiol A 162:649-652.
12. Burkhardt D, de la Motte I, Lunau K, 1994. Signalling fitness: larger males sire more offspring. Studies of the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis whitei (Diopsidae, Diptera). J Comp Physiol A 174:61-64.
13. Burley N, 1985. The organization of behavior and the evolution of sexually selected traits. Ornithol Monogr 37:22-44.
14. Chapman T, Liddle LF, Kalb JM, Wolfner MF, Partridge L, 1995. Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373:241-244.
15. Connolly K, Burnet B, Kearney M, Eastwood L, 1974. Mating speed and courtship behaviour of inbred strains of Drosophila melanogaster. Behaviour 48:61-74.
16. Darwin C, 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: Murray.
17. de la Motte I, Burkhardt D, 1983. Portrait of an Asian stalk-eyed fly. Naturwissenschaften 70:451-461.
18. DeSalle R, Williams AK, George M, 1993. Isolation and characterization of animal mitochondrial DNA. Methods Enzymol 224:176-204.
19. Eberhard WG, 1996. Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
20. Endler JA, 1992. Signals, signal conditions and the direction of evolution. Am Nat 139:8125-8153.
21. Endler JA, McLellan T, 1988. The processes of evolution: toward a newer synthesis. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 19:395-421.
22. Falconer DS, 1981. Introduction to quantitative genetics. New York: Longman.
23. Feijen HR, 1989. Diopsidae. In: Flies of the Nearctic region (Griffiths, GCD, eds). Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung; 1-122.
24. Felsenstein J, 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783-791.
25. Fisher RA, 1915. The evolution of sexual preference. Eugenics Rev 7:184-192.
26. Fisher RA, 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
27. Gatesy J, DeSalle R, Wheeler W, 1993. Alignment-ambiguous nucleotide sites and the exclusion of systematic data. Mol Phylogenet Evol 2:152-157.
28. Gerhardt HC, 1995. Within-male variability in call properties and female preference in the grey treefrog. Anim Behav 50:1187-1191.
29. Gerhardt HC, Dyson ML, Tanner SD, 1996. Dynamic properties of the advertisement calls of gray tree frogs: patterns of variability and female choice. Behav Ecol 7:7-18.
30. Gilburn AS, Day TH, 1994. Evolution of female choice in seaweed flies: Fisherian and good genes mechanisms operate in different populations. Proc R Soc Lond B 255:159-165.
31. Haig D, Bergstrom CT, 1995. Multiple mating, sperm competition and meiotic drive. J Evol Biol 8:265-282.
32. Halliday T, Arnold SJ, 1987. Multiple mating by females: a perspective from quantitative genetics. Anim Behav 35:939-941.
33. Hamilton WD, 1982. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218:384-387.
34. Hurlbert SH, 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol Monogr 54:187-211.
35. Hurst L, Pomiankowski A, 1991. Causes of sex ratio bias may account for unisexual sterility in hybrids: a new explanation of Haldane's rule and related phenomenon. Genetics 128:841-858.
36. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A, Nee S, 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The "handicap" principle. Evolution 45:1431-1442.
37. Keller L, Reeve HK, 1995. Why do females mate with multiple males? The sexually selected sperm hypothesis. Adv Study Behav 24:291-315.
38. Kirkpatrick M, 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:1-12.
39. Kotrba M, 1996. Sperm transfer by spermatophore in Diptera: new results from the Diopsidae. Zool J Linn Soc 117:305-323.
40. Land MF, 1981. Optics and vision in invertebrates. In: Comparative physiology and evolution of vision in invertebrates. B: invertebrate visual centers and behavior I (Autrum H, ed). New York: Springer-Verlag; 472-593.
41. Lande R, 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:3721-3725.
42. Lombardi CM, Hurlbert SH, 1996. Sunfish cognition and pseudoreplication. Anim Behav 52:419-422.
43. Lorch P, Wilkinson GS, Reillo PR, 1993. Copulation duration and sperm precedence in the Malaysian stalk-eyed fly, Cyrtodiopsis whitei (Diptera: Diopsidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:303-311.
44. Marler CA, Ryan MJ, 1997. Origin and maintenance of a female mating preference. Evolution 51:1244-1248.
45. Meyer A, 1997. The evolution of sexually selected traits in male sword-tail fishes (Xiphophorus: Poeciliidae). Heredity 79:329-337.
46. Meyer A, Morrissey JM, Schartl M, 1994. Recurrent origin of a sexually selected trait in Xiphophorus fishes inferred from a molecular phylogeny. Nature 368:539-542.
47. Pitnick S, Markow TA, Riedy MF, 1991. Transfer of ejaculate and incorporation of male-derived substances by females in the Nannoptera species group (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Evolution 45:774-780.
48. Pomiankowski A, 1987. Sexual selection: The handicap principle does work - sometimes. Proc R Soc Lond B 231:123-145.
49. Pomiankowski A, Møller, AP, 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc R Soc Lond B 260:21-29.
50. Presgraves D, Severence E, Wilkinson GS, 1997. Sex chromosome meiotic drive in stalk-eyed flies. Genetics 147:1169-1180.
51. Proctor HC, 1991. Courtship in the water mite Neumania papillator: males capitalize on female adaptations for predation. Anim Behav 42:589-598.
52. Proctor HC, 1993. Sensory exploitation and the evolution of male mating behaviour: a cladistic test using water mites (Acari: Parasitengona). Anim Behav 44:745-752.
53. Ridley M, 1988. Mating frequency and fecundity in insects. Biol Rev 63:509-549.
54. Ritchie MG, 1996. The shape of female mating preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 93:14628-14634.
55. Ryan MJ, 1990. Sexual selection, sensory systems and sensory exploitation. Oxford Surv Evol Biol 7:157-195.
56. Ryan MJ, Fox JH, Wilczynski W, Rand AS, 1990. Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343:66-67.
57. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A, 1992. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 139:s4-s35.
58. Ryan MJ, Rand AS, 1993. Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghosts of biases past. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 340:187-195.
59. Schluter D, 1988. Estimating the form of natural selection on a quantitative trait. Evolution 42:849-861.
60. Schluter D, Nychka D, 1994. Exploring fitness surfaces. Am Nat 143:597-616.
61. Shaw K, 1995. Phylogenetic tests of the sensory exploitation model of sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 10:117-120.
62. Sherman PW, Wolfenbarger LL, 1995. Genetic correlations as tests for sensory exploitation? Trends Ecol Evol 10:246.
63. Steyskal GC, 1972. A catalogue of species and key to the genera of the family Diopsidae. Stuttg Beitr Naturkd Ser A 1-20.
64. Swofford DL, 1993. PAUP: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 3.1. Champaign: Illinois Natural History Survey.
65. Wagner WE Jr, Murray A-M, Cade WH, 1995. Phenotypic variation in the mating preferences of female field crickets. Anim Behav 49:1269-1281.
66. Walker WF, 1980. Sperm utilization strategies in nonsocial insects. Am Natur 115:780-799.
67. Wheeler WC, Gladstein DS, 1994. MALIGN: a multiple sequence alignment program. J Heredity 85:417-418.
68. Wilkinson GS, 1993. Artificial sexual selection alters allometry in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Genet Res 62:213-222.
69. Wilkinson GS, Dodson G, 1997. Function and evolution of antlers and eye stalks in flies. In: The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids (Choe J, Crespi B, eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 310-328.
70. Wilkinson GS, Presgraves DC, Crymes L, 1998. Male eye span in stalk-eyed flies indicates genetic quality by meiotic drive suppression. Nature 391:276-279.
71. Wilkinson GS, Reillo PR, 1994. Female preference response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc R Soc Lond B 255:1-6.
72. Zahavi A, 1975. Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205-214.
73. Zeh JA, Zeh DW, 1996. The evolution of polyandry I: intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1711-1717.