Morphological variation of an ornament expressed in both sexes of the mosquito sabethes cyaneus

Evolutionary Ecology Research

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 1-21

  South, Sandra H ^a   Arnqvist, Göran ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Allometry; Diptera; Elliptic fourier analysis; Sexual selection; Signal; Variation

Indexed keywords

DIPTERA; SABETHES CYANEUS;

EID: 70350147369     PISSN: 15220613     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (101)

1. Alexander, R.D., Marshall, D.C. and Cooley, J.R. 1997. Evolutionary perspectives on insect mating. In The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids (J.C. Choe and BJ. Crespi, eds.), pp. 4-31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Allen, B.J. and Levinton, I.S. 2007. Costs of bearing a sexually selected ornamental weapon in a fiddler crab. Fund. Ecol., 21: 154-161.
3. Amundsen, T. 2000. Why are female birds ornamented? Trends Ecol. Evol, 15: 149-155.
4. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Armbruster, P. and Hutchinson, R.A. 2002. Pupal mass and wing length as indicators of fecundity in Aedes albopictus and Aedes geniculatus. J. Med. Entomol, 39: 699-704.
6. Arnqvist, G. and Nilsson, T. 2000. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim. Behav., 60: 145-164.
7. Badyaev, A.V. 2004. Developmental perspective on the evolution of sexual ornaments. Evol. Ecol. Res., 6: 975-991.
8. Beeler, A.E., Rauter, C.M. and Moore, A.J. 2002. Mate discrimination by females in the burying beetle Nicrophorus orbicollis: the influence of male size on attractiveness to females. Ecol. Entomol., 27: 1-6.
9. Bonduriansky, R. 2001. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol. Rev, 76: 305-339.
10. Bonduriansky, R. 2007. Sexual selection and allometry: a critical reappraisal of the evidence and ideas. Evolution, 61: 838-849.
11. Bonduriansky, R. and Day, T. 2003. The evolution of static allometry in sexually selected traits. Evolution, 57: 2450-2458.
12. Bonduriansky, R. and Rowe, L. 2005. Intralocus sexual conflict and the genetic architecture of sexually dimorphic traits in Prochyliza xanthostoma (Diptera: Piophilidae). Evolution, 59: 1965-1975. (Pubitemid 41384380)
13. Burkhardt, D. and de la Motte, I. 1988. Big 'antlers' are favoured: female choice in stalk-eyed flies (Diptera, Insecta), field collected harems and laboratory experiments. J. Comp. Physiol A: Sensory Neural Behav. Physiol., 162: 649-652.
14. Burley, N. 1981. The evolution of sexual indistinguishability. In Natural Selection and Social Behaviour: Recent Research and New Theory (R.D. Alexander and D.W. Tinkle, eds.), pp. 121-137. New York: Chiron Press.
15. Campbell, G. and Tomlinson, A. 1998. The roles of the homeobox genes aristaless and Distal-less in patterning the legs and wings of Drosophila. Development, 125: 4483-4493.
16. Cook, S.E., Vernon, J.G., Bateson, M. and Guilford, T. 1994. Mate choice in the polymorphic African swallowtail butterfly, Papilio dardanus - male-like females may avoid sexual harassment. Anim. Behav, 47: 389-397.
17. Cotton, S., Fowler, K. and Pomiankowski, A. 2004. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependence expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B., 271: 771-783.
18. Cotton, S., Rogers, D.W., Small, I, Pomiankowski, A. and Fowler, K. 2006. Variation in preference for a male ornament is positively associated with female eyespan in the stalk-eyed fly Diasemopsis meigenii. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 273: 1287-1292.
19. Coyne, J.A. and Orr, H.A. 2004. Speciation. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
20. Cuervo, J.J. and MØller, A.P. 1999. Phenotypic variation and fluctuating asymmetry in sexually dimorphic feather ornaments in relation to sex and mating system. Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 68: 505-529.
21. Darwin, C. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Sexual Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.
22. Dégallier, N., Sa, G.C., Monteiro, H.A.O., Castro, F.C., Da Silva, O.V., Brandao, R.C.F et al. 1998. Release-recapture experiments with canopy mosquitoes in the genera Haemagogus and Sabethes (Diptera: Culicidae) in Brazilian Amazonia. J. Med. Entomol, 35: 931-936.
23. Dunn, P.O., Whittingham, L.A. and Pitcher, T.E. 2001. Mating systems, sperm competition, and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in birds. Evolution, 55: 161-175.
24. Emlen, D.I. 1994. Environmental control of horn length dimorphism in the beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Proc. R Soc. Lond. B, 256: 131-136.
25. Emlen, D.I. and Nijhout, H.F. 2000. The development and evolution of exaggerated morphologies in insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol, 45: 661-708.
26. Emlen, D.I., Lavine, L.C. and Ewen-Campen, B. 2007. On the origin and evolutionary diversification of beetle horns. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104: 8661-8668.
27. Evans, M.R. 2004. Limits on the evolution of tail ornamentation in birds. Am. Nat., 163: 341-357.
28. Ferson, S., Rohlf, F.I. and Koehn, R.K. 1985. Measuring shape variation of two-dimensional outlines. Syst. Zool, 34: 59-68.
29. Fisher, R.A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
30. Forbes, M.R., Schalk, G., Miller, J.G. and Richardson, J.M.L. 1997. Male-female morph interactions in the damselfly Nehalennia irene (Hagen). Can. J. Zool, 75: 253-260.
31. Godin, J.G.J. and McDonough, H.E. 2003. Predator preference for brightly colored males in the guppy: a viability cost for a sexually selected trait. Behav. Ecol, 14: 194-200.
32. Grafen, A. 1990a. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol, 144: 517-546.
33. Grafen, A. 1990b. Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J. Theor. Biol, 144: 475-516.
34. Green, A.I. 1992. Positive allometry is likely with mate choice, competitive display and other functions. Anim. Behav, 43: 170-172.
35. Gwynne, D.T. 1991. Sexual competition among females: what causes courtship-role reversal? Trends Ecol. Evol., 6: 118-121.
36. Gwynne, D.T. 1993. Food quality controls sexual selection in mormon crickets by altering male mating investment. Ecology, 74: 1406-1413.
37. Hancock, R.G., Foster, W.A. and Yee, W.L. 1990a. Courtship behavior of the mosquito Sabethes cyaneus (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Insect Behav, 3: 401-416.
38. Hancock, R.G., Yee, W.L. and Foster, W.A. 1990b. Tests of Sabethes cyaneus leg paddle function in mating and flight. J. Am. Mosquito Control Assoc, 6: 733-735.
39. Harbach, R.E. and Petersen, X.L. 1992. Two species previously confused under the concept of Sabethes tarsopus in Central America (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosquito Syst., 24: 102-124.
40. Hingle, A., Fowler, K. and Pomiankowski, A. 2001. Size-dependent female mate preference in the stalk-eyed fly, Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Anim. Behav, 61: 589-595
41. Hooper, P.L. and Miller, G.F. 2008. Mutual mate choice can drive costly signaling even under perfect monogamy. Adaptive Behav, 16: 53-69.
42. Huxley, J.S. 1914. The courtship habits of the great crested grebe {Podiceps cristatus); with and addition to the theory of sexual selection. Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 35: 491-562.
43. Huxley, J.S. 1932. Problems of Relative Growth. New York: Lincoln Mac Veagh - The Dial Press.
44. Jang, Y. and Greenfield, M.D. 1996. Ultrasonic communication and sexual selection in wax moths: female choice based on energy and asynchrony of male signals. Anim. Behav., 51: 1095-1106.
45. Jang, Y. and Greenfield, M.D. 1998. Absolute versus relative measurements of sexual selection: assessing the contributions of ultrasonic signal characters to mate attraction in lesser wax moths, Achroia grisella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Evolution, 52: 1383-1393.
46. Jennions, M.D. 1993. Female choice in birds and the cost of long tails. Trends Ecol. Evol, 8: 230-232.
47. Johnson, K. and Burley, N.T. 1997. Mating tactics and mating systems of birds. Ornithol. Monogr, 1997: 21-60.
48. Jones, I.L. and Hunter, F.M. 1993. Mutual sexual selection in a monogamous seabird. Nature, 362: 238-239.
49. Jones, I.L. and Hunter, F.M. 1999. Experimental evidence for mutual inter- and intrasexual selection favouring a crested auklet ornament. Anim. Behav., 57: 521-528.
50. Judd, D.D. 1996. Review of the systematics and phylogenetic relationships of Sabethini (Diptera: Culicidae). Syst. Entomol, 21: 129-150.
51. Kemp, D.J. 2006. Heightened phenotypic variation and age-based fading of ultraviolet butterfly wing coloration. Evol. Ecol. Res., 8: 515-527.
52. Kemp, D.I. and Rutowski, R.L. 2007. Condition dependence, quantitative genetics, and the potential signal content of iridescent ultraviolet butterfly colorations. Evolution, 61: 168-183.
53. Kimball, R.T. and Ligon, I.D. 1999. Evolution of avian plumage dichromatism from a proximate perspective. Am. Nat, 154: 182-193.
54. Klingenberg, C.P. 1996. Multivariate allometry. In Advances in Morphometrics (L.F Marcus, M. Corti, A. Loy, G.IP Naylor, and D.E. Slice, eds.), pp. 23-49 New York: Plenum Press.
55. Klingenberg, C.P. and Zimmermann, M. 1992. Static, ontogenetic, and evolutionary allometry: a multivariate comparison in nine species of water striders. Am. Nat., 140: 601-620.
56. Knell, R.J., Pomfret, J.C. and Tomkins, J.L. 2004. The limits of elaboration: curved allometries reveal the constraints on mandible size in stag beetles. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 271: 523-528.
57. Kodric-Brown, A., Sibly, R.M. and Brown, J.H. 2006. The allometry of ornaments and weapons. Proc. Natl. Acad Sci. USA, 103: 8733-8738.
58. Kraaijeveld, K., Gregurke, J, Hall, C, Komdeur, J. and Mulder, R.A. 2004. Mutual ornamentation, sexual selection, and social dominance in the black swan. Behav. Ecol., 15: 380-389.
59. Kraaijeveld, K., Kraaijeveld, F.J.L. and Komdeur, J. 2007. The evolution of mutual ornamentation. Anim. Behav, 74: 657-677.
60. Land, M.F., Gibson, G., Horwood, I. and Zeil, J. 1999. Fundamental differences in the optical structure of the eyes of nocturnal and diurnal mosquitoes. J. Comp. Physiol A: Sensory Neural Behav. Physiol, 185: 91-103.
61. Lande, R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution, 34: 292-305.
62. Lande, R. 1987. Genetic correlations between the sexes in the evolution of sexual dimorphism and mating preferences. In Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives (J.W. Bradbury and M.B. Andersson, eds.), pp. 83-95. Chichester: Wiley.
63. Lande, R. and Arnold, S.I. 1985. Evolution of mating preference and sexual dimorphism. J. Theor. Biol, 117: 651-664.
64. Lane, J. and Cerqueira, N.L. 1942. Os sabetineos da America (Diptera: Culicidae). Arquivos de Zoologia, 3: 473-849.
65. Langmore, N.E. and Bennett, A.T.D. 1999. Strategic concealment of sexual identity in an estrildid finch. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 266: 543-550.
66. Ligon, J.D. 1999. Evolution of Avian Breeding Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
67. McKinney, M.L. and McNamara, K.J. 1991. Heterochrony: Evolution of Ontogeny. New York: Plenum Press.
68. Munoz, A., Aparicio, J.M. and Bonal, R. 2008. Male barn swallows use differential resource allocation rules to produce ornamental tail feathers. Behav. Ecol, 19: 404-409.
69. Okazawa, T., Horio, M., Suzuki, H. and Mogi, M. 1986. Colonization and laboratory bionomics of Topomyia yanbarensis (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol, 23: 493-501.
70. Petrie, M. 1992. Are all secondary sexual display structures positively allometric and, if so, why? Anim. Behav, 43: 173-175.
71. Philips, T.K., Hancock, R.G. and Foster, W.A. 1996. Epigamic display and unique mating position in Wyeomyia arthrostigma (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Insect Behav., 9: 739-753.
72. Polak, M. and Starmer, W.T. 2005. Environmental origins of sexually selected variation and a critique of the fluctuating asymmetry-sexual selection hypothesis. Evolution, 59: 577-585.
73. Rauskolb, C. 2001. The establishment of segmentation in the Drosophila leg. Development, 128: 4511-4521.
74. Ricker, W.E. 1984. Computation and uses of general trend lines. Can. J. Zool, 62: 1897-1905.
75. Rohlf, F.J. 1992. The analysis of shape variation using ordinations of fitted functions. In Ordination in the Study of Morphology, Evolution and Systematics of Insects (J.T Sorensen and R. Foottit, eds.), pp. 95-112. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
76. Rohlf, F.J. and Archie, J.A. 1984. Comparison of Fourier methods for the description of wing shape in mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Syst. Zool., 33: 302-317.
77. Rowe, L. and Houle, D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 263: 1415-1421.
78. Sawada, M. 1999. Model II: Geometric Mean Regression Add-In for Excel '97. Freeware by M. Sawada, University of Ottawa.
79. Schluter, D. and Price, T. 1993. Honesty, perception and population divergence in sexually selected traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 253: 117-122.
80. Servedio, M.R. 2007. Male versus female mate choice: sexual selection and the evolution of species recognition via reinforcement. Evolution, 61: 2772-2789.
81. Servedio, M.R. and Lande, R. 2006. Population genetic models of male and mutual mate choice. Evolution, 60: 674-685.
82. Shannon, R.C. 1931. On the classification of Brazilian Culicidae with special reference to those capable of harboring the yellow fever virus. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash., 33: 125-164.
83. Shuster, S.M. and Wade, M.J. 2003. Mating Systems and Strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
84. Siegel, J.P., Novak, R.J., Lampman, R.L. and Steinly, B.A. 1992. Statistical appraisal of the weight-wing length relationship of mosquitos. J. Med. Entomol, 29: 711-714.
85. Simmons, L.W. 1986. Female choice in the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer). Anim. Behav., 34: 1463-1470.
86. Simmons, L.W. and Tomkins, X.L. 1996. Sexual selection and the allometry of earwig forceps. Evol. Ecol, 10: 97-104.
87. Sivinski, J. 1997. Ornaments in the Diptera. Florida Entomol., 80: 142-164.
88. Slice, D.E. 2002. Morpheus et al. - Multiplatform Software for Morphometrics Analysis.
89. Sokal, R.R. and Rohlf, F.I. 1995. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. New York: WH. Freeman.
90. South, S.H. and Arnqvist, G. 2008. Evidence of monandry in a mosquito (Sabethes cyaneus) with elaborate ornaments in both sexes. J. Insect Behav., 21: 451-459.
91. Storey, J.D. 2003. The positive false discovery rate: A Bayesian interpretation and the q-value. Ann. Stat, 31: 2013-2035.
92. Swaddle, J.P. 2003. Fluctuating asymmetry, animal behavior, and evolution. Adv. Study Behav., 32: 169-205.
93. Thornhill, R. and Alcock, J. 1983. The Evolution of Insect Mating Systems. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
94. Trivers, R.L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man (B. Campbell, ed.), pp. 136-179. London: Heinemann.
95. Van Gossum, H., Beirinckx, K., Forbes, M.R. and Sherratt, T.N. 2007. Do current hypotheses explain continental and seasonal variation in female morph frequencies of the damselfly, Nehalennia irenel Biol. J. Linn. Soc, 90: 501-508.
96. Watson, P.J. and Thornhill, R. 1994. Fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol., 9: 21-24.
97. West-Eberhard, M.J. 1983. Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q. Rev. Biol., 58: 155-183.
98. Wiley, R.H. and Poston, J. 1996. Indirect mate choice, competition for mates, and coevolution of the sexes. Evolution, 50: 1371-1381.
99. Wilkinson, G.S. and Dodson, G.N. 1997. Function and evolution of antlers and eye-stalks in flies. In Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids (J.C. Choe and BJ. Crespi, eds.), pp. 310-328. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
100. Wilkinson, G.S. and Reillo, P.R. 1994. Female choice response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 255: 1-6.
101. Zsemlye, J.L., Hancock, R.G. and Foster, W.A. 2005. Analysis of a complex vertical copulatory-courtship display in the yellow fever vector Sabethes chloropterus. Med. Vet. Entomol, 19: 276-285.