Phenotypic and genetic variation in male genitalia in the seedbug, Lygaeus equestris (Heteroptera)

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 98, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 400-405

  Higgins, Sahran L ^a   Hosken, David J ^a   Wedell, Nina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Allometry; Heritability; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; BODY SIZE; EVOLUTION; GENETIC VARIATION; HERITABILITY; INSECT; MALE; PHENOTYPE; REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY; SEXUAL SELECTION;

HETEROPTERA; HEXAPODA; LYGAEUS EQUESTRIS;

EID: 70349205636     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: 10958312     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2009.01292.x     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Andrade CAC, Vieira RD, Ananina G, Klaczko LB. 2009. Evolution of the male genitalia: morphological variation of the aedeagii in a natural population of Drosophila mediopunctata. Genetica 135 : 13 23.
2. Arnqvist G. 1997. The evolution of animal genitalia: distinguishing between hypotheses by single species studies. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 60 : 365 379.
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 waterstriders (Heteroptera: Gerridae: Insecta). Genetical Research 71 : 192 212.
4. 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.
5. Bertin A, Fairbairn DJ. 2007. The form of sexual selection on male genitalia cannot be inferred from within-population variance and allometry, as case study in Aquarius remegis. Evolution 61 : 825 837.
6. Bonduriansky R. 2007. Sexual selection and allometry: a reappraisal of the evidence and ideas. Evolution 61 : 838 849.
7. Bonduriansky R, Day T. 2003. The evolution of static allometry in sexually selected traits. Evolution 57 : 2450 2458.
8. Cotton S, Fowler K, Pominakowski A. 2004. Condition dependence of sexual ornament size and variation in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Evolution 58 : 1038 1046.
9. Eberhard WG. 1985. Sexual selection and animal genitalia. London : Harvard University Press.
10. Eberhard WG. 1994. Evidence for widespread courtship during copulation in 131 species of insects and spiders, and implications for cryptic female choice. Evolution. 48 : 711 733.
11. Eberhard WG. 1996. Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
12. Eberhard WG. 2001. Species-pecific genitalic copulatory courtship in sepsid flies (Diptera, Sepsidae, Microsepsis) and theories of genitalic evolution. Evolution 55 : 93 102.
13. Eberhard WG. 2002. Physical restraint or stimulation? The function(s) of the modified front legs of male Archisepsis diversiformis (Diptera: Sepsidae). Journal of Insect Behavior 15 : 831 850.
14. Eberhard WG. 2009. Static allometry and animal genitalia. Evolution 63 : 46 66.
15. Eberhard WG, Huber BA, Rodriguez RLS, Briceño RD, 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.
16. Eberhard WG, Rodriguez RL, Polihronakis M. 2009. Pitfalls in understanding the functional significance of genital allometry. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 22 : 435 445.
17. Goulson D. 1993. Variation in the genitalia of the butterfly Maniola jurtina (Lepidoptera: Satyreinae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 107 : 65 71.
18. Green AJ. 1992. Positive allometry is likely with mate choice, competitive display and other functions. Animal Behaviour 43 : 170 172.
19. Harvey PA, Pagel MD. 1993. The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
20. Hosken DJ, Minder AM, Ward PI. 2005. Male genital allometry in Scathophagidae (Diptera). Evolutionary Ecology 19 : 501 515.
21. Hosken DJ, Stockley P. 2004. Sexual selection and genital evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19 : 87 93.
22. Houle D. 1992. Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics 130 : 195 204.
23. House CM, Simmons LW. 2003. Genital morphology and fertilisation success in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus: an example of sexually selected male genitalia. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 270 : 447 455.
24. House CM, Simmons LW. 2005. 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 18 : 1281 1292.
25. House CM, Simmons LW. 2007. No evidence of condition-dependent expression of male genitalia in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20 : 1322 1332.
26. Jennions MD, Kelly CD. 2002. Geographical variation in male genitalia in Brachyrhaphis episcope (Poeciliidae): is it sexually or naturally selected? Oikos 97 : 79 86.
27. Kodric-Brown A, Sibly RM, Brown JH. 2006. The allometry of ornaments and weapons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103 : 8733 8738.
28. Lüpold S, McElligott AG, Hosken DJ. 2004. Bat genitalia: allometry, variation and good genes. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 83 : 497 507.
29. Micholtisch T, Krügel P, Pass G. 2000. Insemination and fertilisation in the seed bug Lygaeus simulans (Heteroptera: Lygaeidae). European Journal of Entomology 97 : 13 18.
30. Petrie M. 1992. Are all secondary sexual display structures positively allometric and, if so, why? Animal Behaviour 43 : 173 175.
31. Pomiankowski A, Møller AP. 1995. A resolution to the lek paradox. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 260 : 21 29.
32. Preziosi RF, Roff DA. 1998. Evidence of genetic isolation between sexually monomorphic and sexually dimorphic traits in the water strider Aquarius remigis. Heredity 8 : 92 99.
33. Rodriguez V, Windsor DM, Eberhard WG. 2004. Tortoise beetle genitalia and demonstrations of a sexually selected advantage for flagellum length in Chelymorpha alternans (Chrysomelidae, Cassidini, Stolaini). In : Jolivet P, Santigao-Blay JA, Schmitt M, eds. New Developments in The Biology of The Chrysomelidae. The Hague, The Netherlands : SPB Academic Publishing, 739 738.
34. Roff DA. 1997. Evolutionary quantitative genetics. New York, NY : Chapman Hall.
35. Rowe L, Houle D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variation by condition dependent traits. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 263 : 1415 1421.
36. Sillén-Tullberg B. 1981. Prolonged copulation: a male 'postcopulatory' strategy in a promiscuous species, Lygaeus equestris (Heteroptera, Lygaeidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 9 : 283 289.
37. Simmons L. 2001. Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Oxford : Princeton University Press.
38. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. 1981. Biometry, 3rd edn. San Francisco, CA : WH Freeman.
39. Solbreck C, Sillén-Tullberg B. 1986. Seed production and seed predation in a patchy and time-varying environment: dynamics of a milkweed - tephritid fly system. Oecologia 71 : 51 58.
40. Tadler A. 1999. Selection of a conspicuous male genitalic trait in the seedbug Lygaeus simulans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 266 : 1773 1777.
41. Tadler A, Nemeschkal HL, Pass G. 1999. Selection of male traits during and after copulation in the seedbug Lygaeus simulans (Heteroptera, Lygaeidae). Biological Journal of Linnean Society 68 : 471 483.
42. Tasikas DA, Fairn ER, Laurence S, Schulte-Hostedde AI. 2007. Baculum variation and allometry in the muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus): a case for sexual selection. Evolutionary Ecology 23 : 223 232.