Mate choice or polyandry: Reconciling genetic compatibility and good genes sexual selection

Evolutionary Ecology Research

Volumn 4, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 911-917

  Colegrave, Nick ^a   Kotiaho, Janne S ^b   Tomkins, Joseph L ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Female choice; Female control; Incompatibility; Indicator mechanism

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041849726     PISSN: 15220613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Andersson, M. 1986. Evolution of condition dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution, 40: 804-816.
2. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Birkhead, T.R. 1998. Cryptic female choice: criteria for establishing female sperm choice. Evolution, 52: 1212-1218.
4. Brown, J.L. 1997. A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behav. Ecol., 8: 60-65.
5. Charlesworth, B. 1994. The evolution of lethals in the t-haplotype system of the mouse. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 258: 101-107.
6. Evans, J.P. and Magurran, A.E. 2000. Multiple benefits of multiple mating in guppies. P.N.A.S., 97: 10074-10076.
7. Grafen, A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol., 144: 517-546.
8. Iwasa, Y., Pomiankowski, A. and Nee, S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences II. The 'handicap' principle. Evolution, 45: 1431-1442.
9. Johnstone, R.A. 1995. Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol. Rev., 70: 1-65.
10. Johnstone, R.A. and Grafen, A. 1992. Error prone signalling. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 248: 229-233.
11. Pomiankowski, A. 1988. The evolution of female mate preferences for male genetic quality. Oxford Surv. Evol. Biol., 5: 136-184.
12. Reynolds, J.D. and Gross, M.R. 1992. Female mate preference enhances offspring growth and reproduction in a fish, Poecilia reticulata. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 250: 57-62.
13. Rowe, L. and Houle, D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 263: 1415-1421.
14. Simmons, L.W. 1986. Female choice in the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer). Anim. Behav., 34: 1463-1470.
15. Simmons, L.W. 1987. Female choice contributes to offspring fitness in the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 21: 313-321.
16. Stockley, P., Searle, J.B., MacDonald, D.W. and Jones, C.S. 1993. Female multiple mating behaviour in the common shrew as a strategy to reduce inbreeding. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 254: 173-179.
17. Tregenza, T. and Wedell, N. 1998. Benefits of multiple mates in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus. Evolution, 52: 1726-1730.
18. Tregenza, T. and Wedell, N. 2000. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Molec. Ecol., 9: 1013-1027.
19. Zeh, J.A. and Zeh, D.W. 1996. The evolution of polyandry I: intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 263: 1711-1717.
20. Zeh, J.A. and Zeh, D.W. 1997. The evolution of polyandry II: postcopulatory defences against genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 264: 69-75.
21. Zeh, J.A. and Zeh, D.W. 2001. Reproductive mode and the genetic benefits of polyandry. Anim. Behav., 61: 1051-1063.