Intersexual cooperation during male clasping of external female genitalia in the spider Physocyclus dugesi (Araneae, Pholcidae)

Journal of Ethology

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 153-163

  Rodríguez Márquez, Irving A ^a   Peretti, Alfredo V ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DEL ESTADO DE HIDALGO   (Mexico)

^b UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE CÓRDOBA   (Argentina)

Author keywords

Arachnids; Clasping structures; Mating; Sexual conflict; Sexual cooperation; Sexual dimorphism

Indexed keywords

ARACHNIDA; ARANEAE; PHOLCIDAE; PHYSOCYCLUS DUGESI;

EID: 72449202063     PISSN: 02890771     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10164-009-0168-6     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Alexander RD, Marshall DC, Cooley JR (1997) Evolutionary perspectives on insect mating. In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ (eds) The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Princeton University Press, Princenton, pp 4-31.
2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
3. Arnqvist G (1989) Sexual selection in a water strider: the function, mechanism of selection and heritability of a male grasping apparatus. Oikos 56: 344-350.
4. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (1995) Sexual conflict and arms races between the sexes: a morphological adaptation for control of mating in a female insect. Proc R Soc B 261: 123-127.
5. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2002) Comparative analysis unveils antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415: 787-789.
6. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
7. Austad SN (1984) Evolution of sperm priority patterns in spiders. In: Smith RL (ed) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, London, pp 233-249.
8. Bergsten J, Töyrä A, Nilsson AN (2001) Intraspecific variation and intersexual correlation in secondary sexual characters of three diving beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). Biol J Linn Soc 73: 221-232.
9. Blumstein DT, Evans CS, Daniel JC (2000) ©JWatcher™ 0. 9.
10. Chapman T (2006) Evolutionary conflicts of interest between males and females. Curr Biol 16: 744-754.
11. Chapman T, Davies SJ (2004) Functions and analysis of the seminal fluid proteins of male Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies. Peptides 25: 1477-1490.
12. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict. TREE 18: 41-47.
13. Clutton-Brock TH, Parker GA (1995) Sexual coercion in animal societies. Anim Behav 49: 1345-1365.
14. Cordero C, Eberhard WG (2003) Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J Evol Biol 16: 1-6.
15. Cordero C, Eberhard WG (2005) Interaction between sexually antagonistic selection and mate choice in the evolution of female response to male traits. Evol Ecol 19: 111-122.
16. Córdoba-Aguilar A (2006) Sperm ejection as a possible cryptic female choice machanism in Odonata (Insecta). Physiol Entomol 31: 146-153.
17. Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
18. Eberhard WG (2001) The functional morphology of species-specific clasping structures on the front legs of male Archisepsis and Palaeosepsis flies (Diptera, Sepsidae). Zool J Linn Soc 133: 335-368.
19. Eberhard WG (2002) Physical restraint or stimulation? The function(s) of the modified front legs of male Archisepsis diversiformis (Diptera, Sepsidae). J Ins Behav 15: 831-850.
20. Eberhard WG (2004a) Males that are unable to harass females: massive failure to confirm male-female conflict predictions for genitalic evolution in insects and spiders. Biol Rev 79: 121-186.
21. Eberhard WG (2004b) Rapid divergent evolution of sexual morphology: comparative tests of antagonistic coevolution and traditional female choice. Evolution 58: 1947-1970.
22. Eberhard WG (2006) Sexually antagonistic coevolution in insects is associated with only limited morphological diversity. J Evol Biol 19: 657-681.
23. Elgar MA (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection in spiders and other arachnids. In: Birkhead TR, Møller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, London, pp 307-339.
24. Foelix RF (1996) Biology of spiders. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
25. Holland B, Rice WR (1999) Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc Nat Acad Sci 96: 5083-5088.
26. Huber BA (1996) Genitalia, fluctuating asymmetry, and patterns of sexual selection in Physocyclus globosus (Araneae: Pholcidae). Rev Suisse Zool suppl: 28: 9-294.
27. Huber BA (1997) The pholcid spiders of Costa Rica (Araneae: Pholcidae). Rev Biol Trop 45: 1583-1634.
28. Huber BA (1998a) Spider reproductive behaviour: a review of Gerhardt's work from 1911-1933, with implications for sexual selection. Bull Br Arachnol Soc 11(3): 81-91.
29. Huber BA (1998b) Genital mechanics in some neotropical pholcid spiders (Araneae: Pholcidae), with implications for systematics. J Zool Lond 244: 587-599.
30. Huber BA (1999) Sexual selection in pholcid spiders (Araneae, Pholcidae): artful chelicerae and forceful genitalia. J Arachnol 27: 135-141.
31. Huber BA (2000) New World pholcid spiders (Araneae: Pholcidae): a revision at generic level. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 254: 1-348.
32. Huber BA (2002) Functional morphology of the genitalia in the spider Spermophora senoculata (Pholcidae, Araneae). Zool Anz 241: 105-116.
33. Huber BA (2005) Sexual selection research on spiders: progress and biases. Biol Rev 80: 363-385.
34. Huber BA, Eberhard WG (1997) Courtship, genitalia, and genital mechanics in Physocyclus globosus (Araneae, Pholcidae). Can J Zool 74: 905-918.
35. Huber BA, Brescovit AD, Rheims CA (2005) Exaggerated female genitalia in two new spider species (Araneae: Pholcidae), with comments on genital evolution by female choice versus antagonistic coevolution. Insect Syst Evol 36: 285-292.
36. Ottoni EB (2000) EthoLog 2. 2-a tool for the transcription and timing of behavior observation sessions. Behav Res Methods Instr Comp 32: 446-449.
37. Parker GA (2006) Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Phil Trans R Soc B 361: 235-259.
38. Peretti AV, Córdoba-Aguilar A (2007) On the value of fine-scaled behavioural observations for studies of sexual coercion. Ethol Ecol Evol 19: 77-86.
39. Peretti AV, Willemart R (2007) Sexual coercion does not exclude luring behavior in the climbing camel-spider Oltacola chacoensis (Solifugae, Ammotrechidae). J Ethol 25: 29-39.
40. Peretti AV, Eberhard WG, Briceño RD (2006) Copulatory dialogue: female spiders sing during copulation to influence male genitalic movements. Anim Behav 72: 413-421.
41. Robinson MH (1982) Courtship and mating behaviour in spiders. Ann Rev Entomol 27: 1-20.
42. Ronkainen K, Kaitala A, Huttunen R (2005) The effect of abdominal spines on female mating frequency and fecundity in a water strider. J Ins Behav 18: 619-631.
43. Schäfer M, Uhl G (2002) Determinants of male paternity in the cellar spider Pholcus phalangioides (Araneae: Pholcidae): the role of male and female mating behaviour. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51: 368-377.
44. Schneider JM, Lubin Y (1998) Intersexual conflict in spiders. Oikos 83: 496-506.
45. Thornhill R, Sauer KP (1991) The notal organ of the scorpionfly (Panorpa vulgaris): an adaptation to coerce mating duration. Behav Ecol 2: 156-164.
46. West-Eberhard MJ (2003) Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford.