Evolution: Do bad husbands make good fathers?

Current Biology

Volumn 15, Issue 20, 2005, Pages

  Hosken, David J ^a   Tregenza, Tom ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGGRESSION; ANIMAL; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; FERTILITY; GENETIC SELECTION; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION GENETICS; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SHORT SURVEY;

AGGRESSION; ANIMALS; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; FERTILITY; GENETICS, POPULATION; MALE; SELECTION (GENETICS); SEX FACTORS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

EID: 27144436394     PISSN: 09609822     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.10.005     Document Type: Short Survey

References (20)

1. M. Andersson Sexual Selection 1994 Princeton University Press.
2. G. Arnqvist, and L. Rowe Sexual Conflict 2005 Princeton University Press.
3. M. Kirkpatrick Evolution of female choice and male parental investment in polygynous species: the demise of the "sexy son" Am. Nat. 125 1985 781 788
4. E. Cameron, T. Day, and L. Rowe Sexual conflict and indirect benefits J. Evol. Biol. 16 2003 1055 1060
5. S. Wigby, and T. Chapman Sex peptide causes mating costs in female Drosophila melanogaster Curr. Biol. 15 2005 316 321
6. B. Holland, and W.R. Rice Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes reproductive load Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96 1999 5083 5088
7. O.Y. Martin, and D.J. Hosken Reproductive consequences of population divergence through sexual conflict Curr. Biol. 14 2004 906 910
8. S. Pitnick, and F. Garcia-Gonzales The harm to females increases with male body size in Drosophila melanogaster Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 269 2002 1821 1828
9. A.J. Moore, P.A. Gowaty, and P.J. Moore Females avoid manipulative males and live longer J. Evol. Biol. 16 2003 523 530
10. M. Edvardsson, and T. Tregenza Why do male Callosobruchus maculates harm their mates? Behav. Ecol. 16 2005 788 793
11. C. Cordero, and W.G. Eberhard Female choice of sexually antagonistic adaptations. A critical review of some current research J. Evol. Biol. 16 2003 1 6
12. T. Pizzari, and R.R. Snook Sexual conflict and sexual selection: measuring antagonistic coevolution Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 58 2004 1389 1393
13. M.L. Head, J. Hunt, M.D. Jennions, and R. Brooks The indirect benefits of mating outweigh the direct costs PLOS Biology 3 2005 0289 0294
14. N. Orteiza, J.E. Linder, and W.R. Rice Sexy sons from remating do not recoup the direct costs of harmful male interactions in the Drosophila melanogaster laboratory model system J. Evol. Biol. 18 2005 1315 1323
15. A.D. Stewart, E.H. Morrow, and W.R. Rice Assessing putative interlocus sexual conflict in Drosophila melanogaster using experimental evolution Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 272 2005 2029 2036
16. T.E. Lankford, J.M. Billerbeck, and D.O. Conover Evolution of intrinsic growth and energy acquisition rates. II. Trade-offs with vulnerability to predation in Menidia menidia Evolution Int. J. Org. Evolution 55 2001 1873 1881
17. S. Tan, W. Amos, and S.B. Laughlin Captivity selects for smaller eyes Curr. Biol. 15 2005 R540 R542
18. W.R. Rice, A.D. Stewart, E.H. Morrow, J.E. Linder, N. Orteiza, and P.G. Byrne Assessing sexual conflict in the Drosophila melanogaster laboratory model system Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2006 in press
19. P.R. Grant, and B.R. Grant Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin's finches Science 296 2002 707 710
20. R.A. Fisher The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. (Variorum Edition) 1930 Oxford University Press.