Sexual selection and allometry: A critical reappraisal of the evidence and ideas

Evolution

Volumn 61, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 838-849

  Bonduriansky, Russell ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Allometry; Body shape; Body size; Publication bias; Sampling bias; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; SAMPLING BIAS; SECONDARY SEXUAL CHARACTERISTICS; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVOLUTION; GENETIC SELECTION; MORPHOMETRICS; PHENOTYPE; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT;

ANIMALS; BODY WEIGHTS AND MEASURES; EVOLUTION; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHENOTYPE; SELECTION (GENETICS); SELECTION BIAS; SEX CHARACTERISTICS;

EID: 34047209553     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00081.x     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Abouheif, E., and D. J. Fairbairn. 1997. A comparative analysis of allometry for sexual size dimorphism: assessing Rench's rule. Am. Nat. 149:540-562.
2. Alatalo, R. V., J. Höglund, and A. Lundberg. 1988. Patterns of variation in tail ornament size in birds. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 34:363-374.
3. Archer, M. A., J. P. Phelan, K. A. Beckman, and M. R. Rose. 2003. Breakdown in correlations during laboratory evolution: II. Selection on stress resistance in Drosophila populations. Evolution 57:536-543.
4. Arévalo, J. E., and P. Heeb. 2005. Ontogeny of sexual dimorphism in the long-tailed Manakin Chiroxiphia linearis: long maturation of display trait morphology. Ibis 147:697-705.
5. Baker, R. H., and G. S. Wilkinson. 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of sexual dimorphism and eye-span allometry in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Evolution 55:1373-1385.
6. Bernstein, S., and R. Bernstein. 2002. Allometry of male genitalia in a species of soldier beetle: support for the one-size-fits-all hypothesis. Evolution 56:1707-1710.
7. Bertin, A., and D. J. Fairbairn. 2007. The form of sexual selection on male gentalia cannot be inferred from within-population variance and allometry. A case study in Aquarius remigis. Evolution. 61:825-837.
8. Blanckenhorn, W. U. 2000. The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small? Q. Rev. Biol. 75:385-407.
9. Blanckenhorn, W. U., R. C. Stillwell, K. A. Young, C. W. Fox, and K. G. Ashton. 2006. When Rensch meets Bergmann: does sexual size dimorphism change systematically with latitude? Evolution 60:2004-2011.
10. Bonduriansky, R. 2003. Layered sexual selection: a comparative analysis of sexual behaviour within an assemblage of piophilid flies. Can. J. Zool. 81:479-491.
11. _. 2006. Convergent evolution of sexual shape dimorphism in Diptera. J. Morphol. 267:602-611.
12. _. 2007. The evolution of condition-dependent sexual dimorphism. Am. Nat. 169:9-19.
13. Bonduriansky, R., and T. Day. 2003. The evolution of static allometry in sexually selected traits. Evolution 57:2450-2458.
14. Bonduriansky, R., and L. Rowe. 2003. Interactions among mechanisms of sexual selection on male body size and head shape in a sexually dimorphic fly. Evolution 57:2046-2053.
15. _. 2005. Intralocus sexual conflict and the genetic architecture of sexually dimorphic traits in Prochyliza xanthostoma (Diptera: Piophilidae). Evolution 59:1965-1975.
16. Briceño, R. D., W. G. Eberhard, and S. Quilici. 2005. Comparative allometry and sexual behavior of four fruit fly species in the tribe Ceratitidini (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 78:20-33.
17. Burkhardt, D., I. de la Motte, and K. Lunau. 1994. Signalling fitness: larger males sire more offspring. Studies of the stalkeyed fly Cyrtodiopsis whitei (Diopsidae: Diptera). J. Comp. Physiol. A 174:61-64.
18. Clutton-Brock, T. H. 1982. The functions of antlers. Behaviour 79:108-124.
19. Cotton, S., K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski. 2004. Condition dependence of sexual ornament size and variation in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Evolution 58:1038-1046.
20. Cuervo, J. J., and A. P. Møller. 2001. Components of phenotypic variation in avian ornamental and non-ornamental feathers. Evol. Ecol. 15:53-72.
21. Darwin, C. R. 1874. The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Hurst and Company, New York.
22. Eberhard, W. G. 2002a. Natural history and behavior of Chymomyza mycopelates and C. exophthalma (Diptera: Drosophilidae), and allometry of structures used as signals, weapons, and spore collectors. Can. Entomol. 134:667-687.
23. _. 2002b. The relation between aggressive and sexual behavior and allometry in Palaeosepsis dentatiformis Flies (Diptera: Sepsidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 75:317-332.
24. Eberhard, W. G., and E. E. Gutiérrez. 1991. Male dimorphisms in beetles and earwigs and the question of developmental constraints. Evolution 45:18-28.
25. Eberhard, W. G., B. A. Huber, R. L. Rodriguez, R. D. Briceño, I. Salas, and V. Rodriguez. 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.
26. Emlen, D. J. 1997. Diet alters male horn allometry in the beetle Onthophatus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 264:567-574.
27. _. 2001. Costs and the diversification of exaggerated animal structures. Science 291:1534-1536.
28. Emlen, D. J., and H. F. Nijhout. 2000. The development and evolution of exaggerated morphologies in insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 45:661-708.
29. Fairbairn, D. J. 1997. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28:659-687.
30. Getty, T. 1998a. Handicap signaling: when fecundity and viability do not add up. Anim. Behav. 56:127-130.
31. _. 1998b. Reliable signaling need not be a handicap. Anim. Behav. 56:253-255.
32. Gould, S. J. 1966. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biol. Rev. 41:587-640.
33. _. 1973. Positive allometry of antlers in the "Irish elk", Megaloceros giganteus. Nature 244:375-376.
34. _. 1974. The origin and function of 'bizarre' structures: antler size and skull size in the "Irish elk", Megaloceros giganteus. Evolution 28:191-220.
35. Grafen, A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theo. Biol. 144:517-546.
36. Green, A. J. 1992. Positive allometry is likely with mate choice, competitive display and other functions. Anim. Behav. 43:170-172.
37. _. 1999. Allometry of genitalia in insects and spiders: one size does not fit all. Evolution 53:1621-1624.
38. _. 2000. The scaling and selection of sexually dimorphic characters: an example using the marbled teal. J. Avian Biol. 31:345-350.
39. Hosken, D. J., A. M. Minder, and P. I. Ward. 2005. Male genital allometry in Scathophagidae (Diptera). Evol. Ecol. 19:501-515.
40. Hughes, R. N. 2000. Crab claws as tools and weapons. Pp. 195-206 in P. Dominici, and R. W. Blake, eds. Biomechanics in animal behaviour. BIOS Science Publishers Ltd., Oxford, U.K.
41. Jennions, M. D., and C. D. Kelly. 2002. Geographical variation in male genitalia in Brachyrhaphis episcopi (Poeciliidae): is it sexually or naturally selected? OIKOS 97:79-86.
42. Johnstone, R. A. and A. Grafen. 1993. Dishonesty and the handicap principle. Anim. Behav. 46:759-764.
43. Kawano, K. 1997. Cost of evolving exaggerated mandibles in stag beetles (Coleoptera: Lucanidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 90:453-461.
44. Kelly, C. D., J.-G. J. Godin, and G. Abdallah. 2000. Geographical variation in the male intromittent organ of the Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Can. J. Zool. 78:1674-1680.
45. Kitchener, A. C. 1985. The effect of behaviour and body weight on the mechanical design of horns. J. Zool. 205:191-203.
46. _. 2000. Fighting and the mechanical design of horns and antlers. Pp. 291-314 in P. Dominici, and R. W. Blake, eds. Biomechanics in animal behaviour. BIOS Scientific Publishers Ltd., Oxford, U.K.
47. Klingenberg, C. P., and M. Zimmermann. 1992. Static, ontogenetic, and evolutionary allometry: a multivariate comparison in nine species of water striders. Am. Nat. 140:601-620.
48. Kodric-Brown, A., R. M. Sibly, and J. H. Brown. 2006. The allometry of ornaments and weapons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103:8733-8738.
49. Kotiaho, J. S. 2001. Costs of sexual traits: a mismatch between theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Biol. Rev. 76:365-376.
50. Lande, R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34:292-305.
51. _. 1987. Genetic correlations between the sexes in the evolution of sexual dimorphism and mating preferences. Pp. 83-94 in J. W. Bradbury, and M. B. Andersson, eds. Sexual selection: testing the alternatives. Wiley, Chichester, U.K.
52. McArdle, B. H. 1988. The structural relationship - regression in biology. Can. J. Zool. 66:2329-2339.
53. Merry, J. W., N. I. Morehouse, K. Yturralde, and R. L. Rutowski. 2006. The eyes of a patrolling butterfly: visual field and eye structure in the Orange Sulphur, Colias eurytheme (Lepidoptera, Pieridae). J. Insect Physiol. 52:240-248.
54. Moczek, A. P. 2006. A matter of measurements: challenges and approaches in the comparative analysis of static allometries. Am. Nat. 167:606-611.
55. Moczek, A. P., and D. J. Emlen. 2000. Male horn dimorphism in the scarab beetle, Onthophagus taurus: do alternative reproductive tactics favour alternative phenotypes? Anim. Behav. 59:459-466.
56. Moczek, A. P., and H. F. Nijhout. 2004. Trade-offs during the development of primary and secondary sexual traits in a horned beetle. Am. Nat. 163:184-191.
57. Nijhout, H. F., and D. J. Emlen. 1998. Competition among body parts in the development and evolution of insect morphology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95:3685-3689.
58. Otronen, M. 1998. Male asymmetry and postcopulatory sexual selection in the fly, Dryomyza anilis. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 42:185-192.
59. Parker, G. A. 1970. The reproductive behaviour and the nature of sexual selection in Scatophaga stercoraria L. (Diptera: Schatophagidae). IV. Epigamic recognition and competition between males for the possession of females. Behaviour 37:8-139.
60. Petrie, M. 1988. Intraspecific variation in structures that display competitive ability: large animals invest relatively more. Anim. Behav. 36:1174-1179.
61. _. 1992. Are all secondary sexual display structures positively allometric and, if so, why? Anim. Behav. 43:173-175.
62. Pomfret, J. C., and R. J. Knell. 2006. Sexual selection and horn allometry in the dung beetle Euoniticellus intermedius. Anim. Behav. 71:567-576.
63. Ricker, W. E. 1984. Computation and uses of central trend lines. Can. J. Zool. 62:1897-1905.
64. Rosenberg, M. S. 2002. Fiddler crab claw shape variation: a geometric morphometric analysis across the genus Uca (Crustacea: Brachyura: Ocypodidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 75:147-162.
65. Simmons, L. W., and J. L. Tomkins. 1996. Sexual selection and the allometry of earwig forceps. Evol. Ecol. 10:97-104.
66. Tomkins, J. L., J. S. Kotiaho, and N. R. LeBas. 2005a. Matters of scale: positive allometry and the evolution of male dimorphisms. Am. Nat. 165:389-402.
67. _. 2005b. Phenotypic plasticity in the developmental integration of morphological trade-offs and secondary sexual trait compensation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 272:543-551.
68. Tseng, M., and L. Rowe. 1999. Sexual dimorphism and allometry in the giant water strider Gigantometra gigas. Can. J. Zool. 77:923-929.
69. von Bertalanffy, L., and W. J. Pirozynski. 1952. Ontogenetic and evolutionary allometry. Evolution 6:387-392.
70. Wallace, B. 1987. Ritualistic combat and allometry. Am. Nat. 129:775-776.
71. Webster, M. S. 1992. Sexual dimorphism, mating system and body size in new world blackbirds (Icterinae). Evolution 46:1621-1641.
72. Wilkinson, G. S. 1993. Artificial sexual selection alters allometry in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni(Diptera: Diopsidae). Genet. Res. Camb. 62:213-222.
73. Wilkinson, G. S., and M. Taper. 1999. Evolution of genetic variation for condition dependent traits in stalk-eyed flies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266:1685-1690.
74. Zeh, D. W., J. A. Zeh, and G. Tavakilian. 1992. Sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in the Harlequin beetle Acrocinus longimanus. Biotropica 24:86-96.