Distinctive developmental variability of genital parts in the sexually dimorphic beetle, Prosopocoilus inclinatus (Coleoptera: Lucanidae)

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 90, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 573-581

  Tatsuta, Haruki ^a,e   Fujimoto, Katsufumi ^b   Mizota, Koji ^c   Reinhardt, Klaus ^d   Akimoto, Shin Ichi ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b HOKKAIDO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^c MIYAGI UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION   (Japan)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^e NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES   (Japan)

Author keywords

Allometry; Genitalia; One size fits all hypothesis; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; BEETLE; BODY SIZE; DEVELOPMENTAL STABILITY; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; MORPHOLOGY; SEXUAL DIMORPHISM; SEXUAL SELECTION;

COLEOPTERA; LUCANIDAE; PROSOPOCOILUS INCLINATUS;

EID: 33947376862     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: 10958312     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00744.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Arnqvist G. 1998. Comparative evidence for the evolution of genitalia by sexual selection. Nature 393: 784-786.
2. Arnqvist G, Rowe L. 2002. Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415: 787-789.
3. Bernstein S, Bernstein R. 2002. Allometry of male genitalia in a species of soldier beetle: support for the one-size-fits-all hypothesis. Evolution 56: 1707-1710.
4. Cordero Rivera A, Andres JA, Cordoba-Aguilar A, Utzeri C. 2004. Postmating sexual selection: allopatric evolution of sperm competition mechanisms and genital morphology in calopterygid damselflies. Evolution 58: 349-359.
5. Cordoba-Aguilar A. 2002. Sensory trap as the mechanism of sexual selection in a damselfly genitalic trait (Insecta: Calopterygidae). American Naturalist 160: 594-601.
6. Eberhard WG, Gutierrez E. 1991. Dimorphism among males of horned beetles and earwigs and the question of developmental constraints. Evolution 45: 18-28.
7. Eberhard WG, Huber BA, Rodriguez RL, Briceno SRD, 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.
8. Gage MJG, Stockley P, Parker GA. 1995. Effects of alternative male mating strategies on characteristics of sperm production in the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar): theoretical and empirical investigations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 350: 391-399.
9. Green AJ. 1999. Allometry of genitalia in insects and spiders: one size does not fit all. Evolution 53: 1621-1624.
10. Hosken DJ, Minder AM, Ward PI. 2005. Male genital allometry in scathophagidae (Diptera). Evolutionary Ecology 19: 501-515.
11. Hosken DJ, Stockley P. 2004. Sexual selection and genital evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 87-93.
12. Klingenberg CP, Nijhout HF. 1998. Competition among growing organs and developmental control of morphological asymmetry. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 265: 1135-1139.
13. Knell RJ, Pomfret JC, Tomkins JL. 2004. The limits of elaboration: curved allometries reveal the constraints on mandible size in stag beetles. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 271: 523-528.
14. Kotiaho JS, Tomkins JL. 2001. The discrimination of alternative male morphologies. Behavioral Ecology 12: 553-557.
15. Lupold S, Mcelligott AG, Hosken DJ. 2004. Bat genitalia: allometry, variation and good genes. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 83: 497-507.
16. Mendez V, Cordoba-Aguilar A. 2004. Sexual selection and animal genitalia. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 224-225.
17. Moczek AP, Nijhout HF. 2004. Trade-offs during the development of primary and secondary sexual traits in a horned beetle. American Naturalist 163: 184-191.
18. Mutanen M, Kaitala A. 2006. Genital variation in a dimorphic moth Selenia tetralunaria (Lepidoptera, Geometridae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 87: 297-307.
19. Nijhout HF, Emlen DJ. 1998. Competition among body parts in the development and evolution of insect morphology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95: 3685-3689.
20. Nijhout HF, Wheeler DE. 1996. Growth models of complex allometries in holometabolous insects. American Naturalist 148: 40-56.
21. Pigliucci M, Preston K, eds. .2004. Phenotypic integration: studying the ecology and evolution of complex phenotypes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Pomiankowski A, Moller AP. 1995. A resolution of lek paradox. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 260: 21-29.
23. R Development Core Team. 2004. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at http://www.R-project.org).
24. SAS Instituite Inc. 2002. JMP for Windows, Version 5.01. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
25. Scion Corp. 2000. Scion Image for Windows, Version 4.02. Available at http://www.scioncorp.com/).
26. Shiokawa T, Iwahashi O. 2000. Mating success of small sized males of Japanese stag beetle Prosopocoilus dissimilis okinawanus Nomura. Japanese Journal of Entomology (New Series) 3: 157-165.
27. Tatsuta H, Mizota K, Akimoto S. 2001. Allometric patterns of heads and genitalia in the stag beetle Lucanus maculifemoratus (Coleoptera: Lucanidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 94: 462-466.
28. Tatsuta H, Mizota K, Akimoto S. 2004. Relationship between size and shape in the sexually dimorphic beetle Prosopocoilus inclinatus (Coleoptera: Lucanidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 81: 219-233.
29. Tomkins JL, Kotiaho JS, LeBas NR. 2005. Phenotypic plasticity in the developmental integration of morphological trade-offs and secondary sexual trait compensation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 272: 543-551.