The evolution of male genitalia: Patterns of genetic variation and covariation in the genital sclerites of the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 1281-1292

  House, C M ^a   Simmons, L W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Additive genetic variation; Genetic correlation; Genital evolution; Maternal effects; Morphological integration; Onthophagus taurus; Pleiotropy

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BEETLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CROSS BREEDING; EVOLUTION; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; GENOTYPE; HISTOLOGY; MALE; MALE GENITAL SYSTEM; MORPHOMETRICS; REPRODUCTION; SEX DIFFERENCE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; BEETLES; BODY WEIGHTS AND MEASURES; CROSSES, GENETIC; EVOLUTION; GENITALIA, MALE; GENOTYPE; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MALE; MODELS, GENETIC; REPRODUCTION; SELECTION (GENETICS); SEX FACTORS; VARIATION (GENETICS); WESTERN AUSTRALIA;

COLEOPTERA; ONTHOPHAGUS TAURUS;

EID: 28444473157     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: 14209101     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.00926.x     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Arnqvist, G. 1997. The evolution of animal genitalia: distinguishing between hypotheses by single species studies. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 60: 365-379.
2. Arnqvist, G. 1998. Comparative evidence for the evolution of genitalia by sexual selection. Nature 393: 784-786.
3. Arnqvist, G. & Thornhill, R. 1998. Evolution of animal genitalia: patterns of phenotypic and genotypic variation and condition dependence of genital and non-genital morphology in water strider (Heteroptera: Gerridae: Insecta). Genet. Res. Camb. 71: 193-212.
4. Begin, M. & Roff, D.A. 2001. An analysis of G matrix variation in two closely related cricket species, Gryllus firmus and G. pennsylvanicus. J. Evol. Biol. 14: 1-13.
5. Begin, M. & Roff, D.A. 2003. The constancy of the G matrix through species divergence and the effects of quantitative genetic constraints on phenotypic evolution: a case study in crickets. Evolution 57: 1107-1120.
6. Begin, M. & Roff, D.A. 2004. From micro- to macroevolution through quantitative genetic variation: positive evidence from field crickets. Evolution 58: 2287-2304.
7. Blows, M.W. & Brooks, R. 2003. Measuring non-linear selection. Am. Nat. 162: 815-820.
8. Blows, M.W. & Hoffman, A.A. 2005. A reassessment of genetic limits to evolutionary change. Ecology (in press).
9. Brodie, E.D..III 1992. Correlational selection for the colour pattern and antipredator behaviour in the garter snake Thamnophis ordinoides. Evolution 46: 1284-1298.
10. Bryant, F.B. & Yarnold, P.R. 2003. Principal-components Analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In: Reading and Understanding Multivariate Statistics (L. G. Grimm & P.R. Yarnold, eds), pp. 99-106. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
11. Civetta, A. & Clark, A.G. 2000. Chromosomal effects on male and female components of sperm precedence in Drosophila. Genet Res Camb 75: 143-151.
12. Clark, A.G., Aguade, M., Prout, T., Harshman, L.G. & Langley, C.H. 1995. Variation in sperm displacement and its association with accessory gland protein loci in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 149: 189-201.
13. Cheverud, J.M. 1984. Quantitative genetics and developmental constraints on evolution by selection. J. Theor. Biol. 110: 155-172.
14. Cheverud, J.M. 1988. A comparison of genetic and phenotypic correlations. Evolution 42: 958-968.
15. Cheverud, J.M. 1995. Morphological integration in the saddle-back tamarin (Saguinus fuscicollis) cranium. Am. Nat. 145: 63-89.
16. Cheverud, J.M. & Moore, A.J. 1994. Quantitative genetics and the role of the environment provided by relatives in the evolution of behaviour. In: Quantitative Genetic Studies of Behavioural Evolution (C. R. B. Boake ed.), pp. 67-100. University of Chocago Press, Chicago.
17. Danielsson, I. & Askenmo, C. 1999. Male genital traits and mating interval affect male fertilization success in the water strider Gerris lacustris. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 46: 149-156.
18. Eberhard, W.G. 1985. Sexual Selection and Animal Genitalia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
19. Eberhard, W.G., Huber, B.A., Rodriguez, R.L.S., Briceño, R.D., Salas, I. & Rodriguez, V. 1998. One size fits all? Relationships between the size and degree of variation in genitalia and other body parts in twenty species of insects and spiders. Evolution 52: 415-431.
20. Fairbairn, D.J. 1988. Sexual selection for homogamy in the Gerridae: an extension of Ridley's comparative approach. Evolution 42: 1212-1222.
21. Fairbairn, D.J. & Preziosi, R.F. 1994. Sexual selection and the evolution of allometry for sexual size dimorphism in the water strider, Aquarius remigis. Am. Nat. 144: 101-118.
22. Felsenstein, J. 1976. The theoretical population genetics of variable selection and migration. Annu. Rev. Genet. 10: 253-280.
23. Goulson, D. 1993. Variation in the genitalia of the butterfly Maniola jurtina (Lepidoptera: Satyrinae). Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 107: 65-71.
24. Gustafsson, L. 1986. Lifetime reproductive success and heritability: empirical support for Fisher's fundamental theorem. Am. Nat. 128: 761-764.
25. Haldane, J.B.S. & Jayakar, S.D. 1963. Polymorphism due to selection of varying direction. J. Genet. 58: 237-242.
26. Hosken, D.J. & Stockley, P. 2004. Sexual selection and genital evolution. TREE. 19: 87-93.
27. Houle, D. 1992. Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130: 195-204.
28. House, C.M. & Simmons, L.W. 2003. Genital morphology and fertilization success in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus: an example of sexually selected male genitalia. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 270: 447-455.
29. Hunt, J. & Simmons, L.W. 2000. Maternal and paternal effects on offspring phenotype in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. Evolution 54: 936-941.
30. Hunt, J. & Simmons, L.W. 2001. Status-dependent selection in the dimorphic beetle Onthophagus taurus. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. 268: 2409-2414.
31. Hunt, J. & Simmons, L.W. 2002. The genetics of maternal care: direct and indirect genetic effects on phenotype in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. PNAS 99: 6828-6832.
32. Hunt, J., Bussièrre, L.F., Jennions, M.D. & Brooks, R. 2004. What is genetic quality? TREE 19: 329-333.
33. Jennions, M.D. & Kelly, C.D. 2002. Geographical variation in male genitalia in Brachyrhaphis episcopi (Poeciliidae): is it sexually or naturally selected? Oikos 97: 79-86.
34. Jia, F.Y. & Greenfield, M.D. 1997. When are good genes good? Variable outcomes of female choice in wax moths. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. 264: 1057-1063.
35. Kelly, C.D., Godin, J.G.J. & Abdallah, G. 2000. Geographical variation in the male intromittent organ of the Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Can. J. Zool. 78: 1674-1680.
36. Kingsolver, J.G. & Wiernasz, D.C. 1991. Development, function, and quantitative genetics of wing melanin patterns in Pieris butterflies. Evolution 45: 1480-1492.
37. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M.J. 1991. The paradox of the lek and the evolution of mating preferences. Nature 350: 33-38.
38. Kotiaho, J.S., Simmons, L.W., Hunt, J. & Tomkins, J.L. 2003. Males influence maternal effects that promote sexual selection: A quantitative genetic experiment with dung beetles Onthophagus taurus. Am. Nat. 161: 852-859.
39. Kruuk, L.E.B., Clutton-Brock, T., Slate, J., Pemberton, J.M., Brotherstone, S. & Guinness, F. 2000. Heritability of fitness in a wild mammal population. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 97: 698-703.
40. Lande, R. 1975. The maintenance of genetic variability by mutation in a polygenic character with linked loci. Genet. Res. 26: 221-235.
41. Lande, R. 1979. Quantitative genetic analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain: body size allometry. Evolution 33: 402-416.
42. Lande, R. 1982. A quantitative genetic theory of life history evolution. Ecology 63: 607-615.
43. Lande, R. & Arnold, S.J. 1983. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37: 1210-1226.
44. Lynch, M. & Walsh, B. 1998. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
45. Manly, B.F.J. 1997. Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology. Chapman & Hall, New York.
46. Mantel, N. 1967. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res. 27: 209-220.
47. Mayr, E. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Havard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
48. Merilä, J. & Sheldon, B.C. 2000. Genetic architecture of fitness and non-fitness traits: empirical patterns and development of ideas. Heredity 83: 103-109.
49. Moczek, A.P. & Nijhout, H.F. 2004. Trade-offs during the development of primary and secondary sexual traits in a horned beetle. Am. Nat. 163: 184-191.
50. Moore, A.J. & Moore, P.J. 1999. Balancing sexual selection through opposing mate choice and male competition. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. 266: 711-716.
51. Mousseau, T.A. & Roff, D.A. 1987. Natural selection and the heritability of fitness components. Heredity 59: 181-198.
52. Nilsson, T., Fricke, C. & Arnqvist, G. 2003. The effect of male and female genotype on variance in male fertilization success in the red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 53: 227-233.
53. Parker, G.A. 1984. Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Strategies. Academic Press, London.
54. Pomiankowski, A. & Møller, A.P. 1995. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 260: 21-29.
55. Preziosi, R.F. & Roff, D.A. 1998. Evidence of genetic isolation between sexually monomorphic and sexually dimorphic traits in the water strider Aquarius remigis. Heredity 81: 92-99.
56. Proctor, H.C., Baker, R.L. & Gwynne, D.T. 1995. Mating behaviour and spermatophore morphology: a comparative test of the female-choice hypothesis. Can. J. Zool. 73: 2010-2020.
57. Roff, D. A. 2002. Comparing G matrices: A MANOVA approach. Evolution 56: 1286-1291.
58. Rowe, L. & Houle, D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 263: 1415-1421.
59. Schluter, D. & Nychka, D. 1994. Exploring fitness surfaces. Am. Nat. 143: 596-616.
60. Schluter, D. 1996. Adaptive radiation along genetic lines of least resistance. Evolution 50: 1766-1774.
61. Simmons, L.W. 2001. Sperm Competition and its Evolutionary Consequences in the Insects. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
62. Sinervo, B. & Svensson, E. 2002. Correlational selection and the evolution of genomic architecture. Heredity 89: 329-338.
63. Tomkins, J.L., Radwan, J., Kotiaho, J.S. & Tregenza, T. 2004. Genic capture and resolving the lek paradox. TREE 19: 323-328.
64. Wolf, J.B., Brodie III, E., Cheverud, D.J.M., Moore, A.J. & Wade, M.J. 1998. Evolutionary consequences of indirect genetic effects. TREE 13: 64-69.