Toward a New Sexual Selection Paradigm: Polyandry, Conflict and Incompatibility (Invited Article)

Ethology

Volumn 109, Issue 12, 2003, Pages 929-950

  Zeh, Jeanne A ^a   Zeh, David W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; COEVOLUTION; INCOMPATIBILITY; POLYANDRY; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY; SEXUAL CONFLICT; SEXUAL SELECTION;

DARWINIA;

EID: 0345768897     PISSN: 01791613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1439-0310.2003.00945.x     Document Type: Review

References (161)

1. Andersson, M. 1994: Sexual Selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.
2. Archer, M. S. & Elgar, M. A. 1999: Female preference for multiple partners: sperm competition in the hide beetle, Dermestes maculatus (DeGeer). Anim. Behav. 58, 669-675.
3. Ariel, I., de Groot, N. & Hochberg, A. 2000: Imprinted H19 in embryogenesis and human cancer: the oncofetal connection. Am. J. Med. Genet. 91, 46-50.
4. Arnqvist, G. & Nilsson, T. 2000: The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim. Behav. 60, 145-164.
5. Arnqvist, G. & Rowe, L. 2002: Correlated evolution of male and female morphologies in water striders. Evolution 56, 936-947.
6. Bacon, F. 1620: Novum Organum, Book I, Aphorism 49
7. Barlow, D. P., Stöger, R., Herrmann, B. G., Saito, K. & Schweifer, N. 1991: The mouse insulin-like growth factor type-2 receptor is imprinted and closely linked to the Tme locus. Nature 349, 84-87.
8. Bartolomei, M. S. & Tilghman, S. M. 1997: Genomic imprinting in mammals. Ann. Rev. Genet. 31, 493-525.
9. Basolo, A. L. 1998: Evolutionary change in a receiver bias: a comparison of female preference functions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265, 2223-2228.
10. Bestor, T. H. 2003: Cytosine methylation mediates sexual conflict. Trends Genet. 19, 185-190.
11. Birkhead, T. R. 1998: Cryptic female choice: criteria for establishing female sperm choice. Evolution 52, 1212-1218.
12. Birkhead, T. R. & Møller, A. P. 1995: Extra-pair copulation and extrapair paternity in birds. Anim. Behav. 49, 843-848.
13. Birkhead, T. R., Moller, A. P. & Sutherland, W. J. 1993: Why do females make it so difficult for males to fertilize their eggs. J. Theoret. Biol. 161, 51-60.
14. Bishop, J. D. D., Jones, C. S. & Noble, L. R. 1996: Female control of paternity in the internally fertilizing compound ascidian Diplosoma listerianum II. Investigation of male mating success using RAPD markers. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263, 401-407.
15. Brooker, M. G., Rowley, I., Adams, M. & Baverstock, P. R. 1990: Promiscuity: an inbreeding avoidance mechanism in a socially monogamous species? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 26, 191-199.
16. Brown, J. L. 1998: The new heterozygosity theory of mate choice and the MHC. Genetica 104, 215-221.
17. Burke, T. & Bruford, M. W. 1987: DNA fingerprinting in birds. Nature 327, 149-152.
18. Cameron, E., Day, T. & Rowe, L. 2003: Sexual conflict and indirect benefits. J. Evol. Biol. 16, 1055-1060.
19. Chapman, T., Liddle, L. F., Kalb, J. M., Wolfner, M. F. & Partridge, L. 1995: Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogasler females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373, 241-244.
20. Chapman, T., Arnqvist, G., Bangham, J. & Rowe, L. 2003: Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 41-47.
21. Charlat, S., Hurst, G. D. & Mercot, H. 2003: Evolutionary consequences of Wolbachia infections. Trends Genet. 19, 217-223.
22. Clapham, P. J. & Palsboll, P. J. 1997: Molecular analysis of paternity shows promiscuous mating in female humpback whales (Megaptera novaengliae, Borowski). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264, 95-98.
23. Clark, A. G. 2002: Sperm competition and the maintenance of polymorphism. Heredity 88, 148-153.
24. Clark, A. G., Begun, D. J. & Prout, T. 1999: Female x male interactions in Drosophila sperm competition. Science 283, 217-220.
25. Clark, A. G., Dermitzakis, E. T. & Civetta, A. 2000: Nontransitivity of sperm competition in Drosophila. Evolution 54, 1030-1035.
26. Colegrave, N., Kotiaho, J. S. & Tomkins, J. L. 2002: Mate choice or polyandry: reconciling genetic compatibility and good genes sexual selection. Evol. Ecol. Res. 4, 911-917.
27. Coltman, D. W., Bancroft, D. R., Robertson, A., Smith, J. A., Clutton-Brock, T. H. & Pemberton, J. M. 1999: Male reproductive success in a promiscuous mammal: behavioral estimates compared with genetic paternity. Mol. Ecol. 8, 1199-1209.
28. Cordero, C. & Eberhard, W. G. 2003: Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J. Evol. Biol. 16, 1-6.
29. Cosmides, L. M. & Tooby, J. 1981: Cytoplasmic inheritance and intragenomic conflict. J. Theor. Biol. 89, 83-129.
30. Darwin, E. 1794: Zoonomia. J. Johnson, London.
31. Darwin, C. 1859: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. John Murray, London.
32. Darwin, C. 1871: The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray, London.
33. Davies, N. B. 1992: Dunnock Behaviour and Social Evolution. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
34. Davis, J. W. F. & O'Donald, P. 1976: Sexual selection for a handicap: a critical analysis of Zahavi's model. J. Theor. Biol. 57, 345-354.
35. Dawkins, R. 1976: The Selfish Gene. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
36. Dawkins, R. 1982: The Extended Phenotype. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951: Genetics and the Origin of Species. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
38. Double, M. & Cockburn, A. 2000: Pre-dawn infidelity: females control extra-pair mating in superb fairy wrens. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267, 465-470.
39. Dunn, P. O. & Lifjeld, J. T. 1994: Can extra-pair copulations be used to predict extra-pair paternity in birds? Anim. Behav. 47, 983-985.
40. Eberhard, W. G. 1996: Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.
41. Eberhard, W. G. & Cordero, C. 2003: Sexual conflict and female choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 438-439.
42. Fisher, R. A. 1915: The evolution of sexual preference. Eugenics Rev. 7, 184-192.
43. Fisher, R. A. 1930: The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
44. Foerster, K., Delhey, K., Johnsen, A., Lifjeld, J. T. & Kempenaers, B. 2003: Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings. Nature 425, 714-717.
45. Fox, C. W. & Rauter, C. M. 2003: Bet-hedging and the evolution of multiple mating. Evol. Ecol. Res. 5, 273-286.
46. Garner, T. W. J. & Schmidt, B. R. 2003: Relatedness, body size and paternity in the alpine newt, Triturus alpestris. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270, 619-624.
47. Gavrilets, S., Arnqvist, G. & Friberg, U. 2001: The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 531-539.
48. Getty, T. 1999: Chase-away sexual selection as noisy reliable signalling. Evolution 53, 299-302.
49. González, A., Rossini, C., Eisner, M. & Eisner, T. 1999: Sexually transmitted chemical defense in a moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 5571-5574.
50. Grafen, A. 1987: Measuring sexual selection: why bother? In: Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives (Bradbury, J. W. & Andersson, M., eds). J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 221-233.
51. Gwynne, D. T. 1984: Courtship feeding increases female reproductive success in bushcrickets. Nature 307, 361-363.
52. Haig, D. 1993: Genetic conflicts in human pregnancy. Q. Rev. Biol. 68, 495-532.
53. Haig, D. 1997: Parental antagonism, relatedness asymmetries, and genomic imprinting. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264, 1657-1662.
54. Haig, D. & Graham, C. 1991: Genomic imprinting and the strange case of the insulin-like growth factor II receptor. Cell 64, 1045-1046.
55. Haig, D. & Westoby, M. 1989: Parent-specific gene expression and the triploid endosperm. Am. Nat. 134, 147-155.
56. Hall, J. G. 1999: Human diseases and genomic imprinting. In: Genomic Imprinting: An Interdisciplinary Approach (Ohlsson, R., ed.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 119-132.
57. Hasselquist, D., Bensch, S. & von Schantz, T. 1996: Correlation between male song repertoire, extra-pair paternity and offspring survival in the great reed warbler. Nature 381, 229-232.
58. Hedrick, P. W. 1992: Female choice and variation in the major histocompatibility complex. Genetics 132, 575-581.
59. Hedrick, P. W. 1999: Balancing selection and MHC. Genetica 104, 207-214.
60. Hedrick, P. W. & Thomson, G. 1988: Maternal-fetal interactions and the maintenance of HLA polymorphism. Genetics 119, 205-212.
61. Hohoff, C., Franzen, K. & Sachser, N. 2003: Female choice in a promiscuous wild guinea pig, the yellow-toothed cavy (Galea musteloides). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 53, 341-349.
62. Holland, B. & Rice, W. R. 1998: Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52, 1-7.
63. Holland, B. & Rice, W. R. 1999: Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 5083-5088.
64. Houle, D. & Kondrashov, A. S. 2002: Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 97-104.
65. Hughes, C. 1998: Integrating molecular techniques with field methods in studies of social behavior: a revolution results. Mol. Ecol. 79, 383-399.
66. Huxley, J. S. 1938: Darwin's theory of sexual selection and the data subsumed by it, in the light of recent research. Am. Nat. 72, 416-433.
67. Huxley, J. S. 1942: Evolution, the Modern Synthesis. Allen & Unwin, London.
68. Imhof, M., Harr, B., Brem, G. & Schlotterer, C. 1998: Multiple mating in wild Drosophila melanogaster revisited by microsatellite analysis. Mol. Ecol. 7, 915-917.
69. Iwasa. Y., Pomiankowksi, A. & Nee, S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The "handicap" principle. Evolution 45, 1431-1442.
70. Jeffreys, A. J., Wilson, V. & Thein, S. L. 1985: Individual-specific 'fingerprints' of human DNA. Nature 316, 76-79.
71. Jennions, M. D. 1997: Female promiscuity and genetic incompatibility. Trends Ecol. Evol. 12, 251-253.
72. Jennions, M. D. & Petrie, M. 2000: Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 75, 21-64.
73. Keller, L. & Reeve, H. K. 1995: Why do females mate with multiple males? The sexually-selected sperm hypothesis. Adv. Stud. Behav. 24, 291-315.
74. Kempenaers, B., Verheyen, G. R., van der Broeck, M., Burke, T., van Broeckhoven, C. & Dhondt, A. A. 1992: Extra-pair paternity results from female preference for high quality males in the blue tit. Nature 357, 494-496.
75. Kirkpatrick, M. 1987: The evolutionary forces acting on female mating preferences in polygynous animals. In: Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives (Bradbury, J. W. & Andersson, M. B., eds). Wiley. Chichester, pp. 67-82.
76. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M. J. 1991: The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350, 33-38.
77. Kodric-Brown, A. & Brown, J. H. 1984: Truth in advertising: the kinds of traits favored by sexual selection. Am. Nat. 124, 309-323.
78. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., McNamara, J. M. & Houston, A. I. 2002: The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 1331-1340.
79. Kuhn, T. S. 1962: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
80. Lande, R. 1981: Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78, 3721-3725.
81. Leigh, E. G. 1977: How does selection reconcile individual advantage with the good of the group? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 74, 4542-4546.
82. McGrath, J. & Solter, D. 1984: Completion of mouse embryogenesis requires both the maternal and paternal genomes. Cell 37, 179-183.
83. McKinney, F., Derrickson, S. R. & Mineau, P. 1983: Forced copulation in waterfowl. Behaviour 86, 250-294.
84. Madsen, T., Shine, R., Loman, J. & Håkansson, T. 1992: Why do female adders copulate so frequently? Nature 355, 440-441.
85. Martin, O. Y. & Hosken, D. J. 2003: The evolution of reproductive isolation through sexual conflict. Nature 423, 979-982.
86. Maynard-Smith, J. 1987: Sexual selection - a classification of models. In: Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives (Bradbury, J. W. & Andersson, M., eds). J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 9-20.
87. Mayr, E. 1942: Systematics and the Origin of Species. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.
88. Mock, D. W. & Parker, G. A. 1997: The Evolution of Sibling Rivalry. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
89. Moore, T. & Haig, D. 1991: Genomic imprinting in mammalian development: a parental tug-of-war. Trends Genet. 7, 45-49.
90. Morgan, T. H. 1903: Evolution and Adaptation. MacMillan, New York.
91. Mulder, R. A., Dunn, P. O., Cockburn, A., Lazenby-Cohen, K. A. & Howell, M. J. 1994: Helpers liberate female fairy wrens from constraints on extra-pair mate choice. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 255, 223-229.
92. Newcomer, S. D. 1998: Polyandry offers genetic benefits to female pseudoscorpions. MS Thesis, Univ. of Houston, Houston.
93. Newcomer, S. D., Zeh, J. A. & Zeh, D. W. 1999: Genetic benefits enhance the reproductive success of polyandrous females. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 10236-10241.
94. O'Donald, P. 1962: The theory of sexual selection. Heredity 17, 541-552.
95. O'Donald, P. 1967: A general model of natural and sexual selection. Heredity 22, 499-518.
96. O'Donald, P. 1983: Sexual selection by female choice. In: Mate Choice (Bateson, P., ed.). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp. 53-66.
97. Olsson, M., Shine, R. & Madsen, T. 1996: Sperm selection by females. Nature 383, 585.
98. Parker, G. A. 1979: Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects (Blum, M. S. & Blum, N. A., eds). Academic Press, New York, pp. 123-166.
99. Parker, G. A. 1983: Arms races in evolution - an ESS to the opponent-independent costs game. J. Theor. Biol. 101, 619-648.
100. Parker, G. A. 1992: Snakes and female sexuality. Nature 355, 395-396.
101. Petrie, M. & Kempenaers, B. 1998: Extra-pair paternity in birds: explaining variation between species and populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 52-58.
102. Pitnick, S., Brown, W. D. & Miller, G. T. 2001a: Evolution of female remating behavior following experimental removal of sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 557-563.
103. Pitnick, S., Miller, G. T., Reagan, J. & Holland, B. 2001b: Males' evolutionary responses to experimental removal of sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 1071-1080.
104. Pizzari, T. & Birkhead, T. R. 2002: The sexually-selected sperm hypothesis: sex-biased inheritance and sexual antagonism. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 77, 183-209.
105. Pizzari, T. & Snook, R. R. 2003: Perspective: sexual conflict and sexual selection: chasing away paradigm shifts. Evolution 57, 1223-1236.
106. Reinhold, K. 2002: Modelling the evolution of female choice strategies under inbreeding conditions. Genetica 116, 189-195.
107. Reynolds, J. D. 1996: Animal breeding systems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 68-72.
108. Rice, W. R. 1992: Sexually antagonistic genes: experimental evidence. Science 256, 1436-1439.
109. Rice, W. R. 1996: Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381, 232-234.
110. Rice, W. R. 2000: Dangerous liaisons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 12953-12955.
111. Rice, W. R. & Holland, B. 1999: Reply to comments on the chase-away model of sexual selection. Evolution 53, 302-306.
112. Ridley, M. 1988: Mating frequency and fecundity in insects. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 63, 509-549.
113. Ridley, M. 1993: Clutch size and mating frequency in parasitic Hymenoptera. Am. Nat. 142, 893-910.
114. Rosenthal, G. G. & Servedio, M. R. 1999: Chase-away sexual selection: resistance to 'resistance'. Evolution 53, 296-299.
115. Rowe, L., Arnqvist, G., Sih, A. & Krupa, J. J. 1994: Sexual conflict and the evolutionary ecology of mating patterns: water striders as a model system. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9, 289-293.
116. Ryan, M. J. 1990: Sexual selection, sensory systems, and sensory exploitation. Oxford Surv. Evol. Biol. 7, 156-195.
117. Sadowski, J. A., Moore, A. J. & Brodie, E. D. 1999: The evolution of empty nuptial gifts in a dance fly, Empis snoddyi (Diptera : Empididae): bigger isn't always better. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 45, 161-166.
118. Sakaluk, S. K. 2000: Sensory exploitation as an evolutionary origin to nuptial food gifts in insects. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 267, 339-343.
119. Sapienza, C. 1995: Genomic imprinting: an overview. Devel. Genet. 17, 185-187.
120. Schulze-Hagen, K., Swatschek, I., Dyrcz, A. & Wink, M. 1993: Multiple Vaterschaften in Bruten des Seggenrohrsängers Acrocephalus paludicola: Erste Ergebnisse des DNA-Fingerprintings. J. Ornithol. 134, 145-154.
121. Simmons, L. W. 2001a: Sperm Competition and its Evolutionary Consequences in Insects. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.
122. Simmons, L. W. 2001b: The evolution of polyandry: an examination of the genetic incompatibility and good-sperm hypotheses. J. Evol. Biol. 14, 585-594.
123. Stockley, P. 1999: Sperm selection and genetic incompatibility: does relatedness of mates affect male success in sperm competition? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 1663-1669.
124. Stockley, P. 2003: Female multiple mating behaviour, early reproductive failure and litter size variation in mammals. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270, 271-278.
125. Stockley, P., Searle, J. B., MacDonald, D. W. & 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.
126. Surani, M. A. H., Barton, S. C. & Norris, M. L. 1984: Development of reconstituted mouse eggs suggests imprinting of the genome during gametogenesis. Nature 308, 548-550.
127. Swanson, W. J., Clark, A. G., Waldrip-Dail, H. M., Wolfner, M. F. & Aquadro, C. F. 2001: Evolutionary EST analysis identifies rapidly evolving male reproductive proteins in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 7375-7379.
128. Thornhill, R. 1980: Rape in Panorpa scorpionflies and a general rape hypothesis. Anim. Behav. 28, 52-59.
129. Thornhill, R. & Alcock, J. 1983: The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge.
130. Tilghman, S. M. 1999: The sins of mothers and fathers: genomic imprinting in mammalian development. Cell 96, 185-193.
131. Tregenza, T. & Wedell, N. 2000: Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol. Ecol. 9, 1013-1027.
132. Tregenza, T. & Wedell, N. 2002: Polyandrous females avoid the costs of inbreeding. Nature 415, 71-73.
133. Trivers, R. L. 1972: Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871-1971 (Campbell, B., ed.). Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago, pp. 136-179.
134. Tycko, B. 1999: Genomic imprinting and cancer. In: Genomic Imprinting: An Interdisciplinary Approach (Ohlsson, R., ed.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 133-169.
135. Vahed, K. 2003: Increases in egg production in multiply mated female bushcrickets Leptophyes punctatissima are not due to substances in the nuptial gift. Ecol. Entomol. 28, 124-128.
136. Villar, A. J. & Pedersen, R. A. 1997: Interspecies approaches for the analysis of parental imprinting during mouse development. J. Hered. 88, 401-407.
137. Wallace, A. R. 1889: Darwinism. MacMillan, London.
138. Watson, J. D. & Crick, F. H. Z. 1953: A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature 171, 737-738.
139. Watson, P. J. 1991: Multiple paternity as genetic bet-hedging in female sierra dome spiders, Linyphia litigosa (Linyphiidae). Anim. Behav. 41, 343-360.
140. Watson, P. J. 1998: Multi-male mating and female choice increase offspring growth in the spider Neriene litigiosa (Linyphiidae). Anim. Behav. 55, 387-403.
141. Watson, P. J., Arnqvist, G. & Stallmann, R. R. 1998: Sexual conflict and the energetic costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Am. Nat. 151, 46-58.
142. West-Eberhard, M. J. 1984: Sexual selection, competitive communication and species-specific signals in insects. In: Insect Communication (Lewis, T., ed.). Academic Press, Toronto, pp. 283-324.
143. Wetton, J. H. & Parkin, D. T. 1991: An association between fertility and cuckoldry in the house sparrow, Passer domesticus. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 245, 227-233.
144. Wetton, J. H., Carter, R. E., Parkin, D. T. & Walters, D. 1987: Demographic study of a wild house sparrow population by DNA fingerprinting. Nature 327, 147-149.
145. Wilkins, J. F. & Haig, D. 2003: What good is genomic imprinting: the function of parent-specific gene expression. Nature Rev. Genet. 4, 359-368.
146. Will, M. W. & Sakaluk, S. K. 1994: Courtship feeding in decorated crickets - Is the spermatophylax a sham? Anim. Behav. 48, 1309-1315.
147. Williams, G. C. 1966: Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.
148. Wilmer, J. W., Allen, P. J., Pomeroy, P. P., Twiss, S. D. & Amos, W. 1999: Where have all the fathers gone? An extensive microsatellite analysis of paternity in the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus). Mol. Ecol. 8, 1417-1429.
149. Wilmer, J. W., Overall, A. J., Pomeroy, P. P., Twiss, S. D. & Amos, W. 2000: Patterns of paternal relatedness in British grey seal colonies. Mol. Ecol. 9, 283-292.
150. Wilson, N., Tubman, S. C., Eady, P. E. & Robertson, G. W. 1997: Female genotype affects male success in sperm competition. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264, 1491-1495.
151. Wolf, Y. I., Rogozin, I. B., Grishin, N. V. & Koonin, E. V. 2002: Genome trees and the tree of life. Trends Genet. 18, 472-479.
152. Wolfner, M. F. 2002: The gifts that keep on giving: physiological functions and evolutionary dynamics of male seminal proteins in Drosophila. Heredity 88, 85-93.
153. Yasui, Y. 1998: The 'genetic benefits' of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 246-250.
154. Zahavi, A. 1975: Mate selection - selection for a handicap. J. Theoret. Biol. 53, 205-214.
155. Zeh, J. A. 1997: Polyandry and enhanced reproductive success in the harlequin-beetle-riding pseudoscorpion. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 40, 111-118.
156. Zeh, D. W. & Smith, R. L. 1985: Paternal investment by terrestrial arthropods. Am. Zool. 25, 785-805.
157. Zeh, J. A. & Zeh, D. W. 1996: The evolution of polyandry 1: intragenomic conflict and genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 263, 1711-1717.
158. Zeh, J. A. & Zeh, D. W. 1997: The evolution of polyandry II: post-copulatory defences against genetic incompatibility. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264, 69-75.
159. Zeh, D. W. & Zeh, J. A. 2000: Reproductive mode and speciation: the viviparity-driven conflict hypothesis. BioEssays 22, 938-946.
160. Zeh, J. A. & Zeh, D. W. 2001: Reproductive mode and the genetic benefits of polyandry. Anim. Behav. 61, 1051-1063.
161. Zeh, J. A., Newcomer, S. D. & Zeh, D. W. 1998: Polyandrous females discriminate against previous mates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 13732-13736.