Z linkage of female promiscuity genes in the moth Utetheisa ornatrix: Support for the sexy-sperm hypothesis?

Evolution

Volumn 64, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1267-1272

  Iyengar, Vikram K ^a   Reeve, Hudson K ^b  

^a VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Cornell University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Fisherian sexual selection; Heritability; Lepidoptera; Mating preferences; Promiscuity; Sex chromosomes

Indexed keywords

CHROMOSOME; COEVOLUTION; HERITABILITY; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; MATING BEHAVIOR; MOTH; PARENT-OFFSPRING INTERACTION; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; FEMALE; GENETICS; MALE; MOTH; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SPERMATOZOON;

ANIMALS; FEMALE; MALE; MOTHS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SPERMATOZOA;

ARCTIIDAE; LEPIDOPTERA; UTETHEISA ORNATRIX;

EID: 77953761626     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00910.x     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Andersson M. Sexual selection 1994, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ
2. Arnold S J, Duvall D. Animal mating systems: a synthesis based on selection theory. Am. Nat. 1994, 143:317-348.
3. Arnqvist G. Multiple mating in a water strider: mutual benefits or intersexual conflict?. Anim. Behav. 1989, 38:749-756.
4. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim. Behav. 2000, 60:145-164.
5. Bateman A J. Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 1948, 2:349-368.
6. Bernasconi G, Keller L. Female polyandry affects their sons' reproductive success in the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum. J. Evol. Biol. 2001, 14:186-193.
7. Bezzerides A. Phenotypic and genetic benefits of promiscuity in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). 2004, Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY
8. Birkhead T R, Møller A P. Sperm competition and sexual selection 1998, Academic Press, San Diego, CA
9. Chapman T, Liddle L F, Kalb J M, Wolfner M F, Partridge L. Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 1995, 373:241-244.
10. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L. Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2003, 18:41-47.
11. Choe J C, Crespi B J. The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids 1997, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K
12. Conner W E, Eisner T, Vander Meer R K, Guerrero A, Ghiringelli D, Meinwald J. Sex attractant of an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix): a pulsed chemical signal. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1980, 7:55-63.
13. Conner W E, Eisner T, Vander Meer R K, Guerrero A, Meinwald J. Precopulatory sexual interaction in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix): role of a pheromone derived from dietary alkaloids. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1981, 9:227-235.
14. Daly M. The cost of mating. Am. Nat. 1978, 112:771-774.
15. Day T, Bonduriansky R. Intralocus sexual conflict can drive the evolution of genomic imprinting. Genetics 2004, 167:1537-1564.
16. Drummond B A. Multiple mating and sperm competition in the Lepidoptera. Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems 1984, 291-270. Smith R L. Pp., , ed., Academic Press, New York, NY
17. Dussourd D E, Ubik K, Harvis C, Resch J, Meinwald J, Eisner T. Biparental defensive endowment of eggs with acquired plant alkaloid in the moth Utetheisa ornatrix. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1988, 85:5992-5996.
18. Dussourd D E, Harvis C A, Meinwald J, Eisner T. Pheromonal advertisement of a nuptial gift by a male moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1991, 88:9224-9227.
19. Eberhard W G. Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice 1996, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ
20. González A, Rossini C, Eisner M, Eisner T. Sexually transmitted chemical defense in a moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96:5570-5574.
21. Halliday T R, Arnold S J. Multiple mating by females: a perspective from quantitative genetics. Anim. Behav. 1987, 35:939-941.
22. Hughes C. Integrating molecular techniques with field methods in studies of social behavior: a revolution results. Mol. Ecol. 1998, 79:383-399.
23. Hurst G D D, Sharpe R G, Broomfield A H, Walker L E, Majerus T M O, Zakharov I A, Majerus M E N. Sexually transmitted disease in a promiscuous insect, Adalia bipunctata. Ecol. Entomol. 1995, 20:230-236.
24. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A, Nee S. The evolution of costly mate preferences II. The 'handicap' principle. Evolution 1991, 45:1431-1442.
25. Iyengar V K, Eisner T. Heritability of body mass, a sexually selected trait, in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999a, 96:9169-9171.
26. Iyengar V K, Eisner T. Female choice increases offspring fitness in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999b, 96:15013-15016.
27. Iyengar V K, Reeve H K, Eisner T. Paternal inheritance of a female moth's mating preference. Nature 2002, 419:830-832.
28. Jennions M D, Petrie M. Why do females mate multiple? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol. Rev. 2000, 75:21-64.
29. Keller L, Reeve H K. Why do females mate with multiple males? The sexually-selected sperm hypothesis. Adv. Stud. Behav. 1995, 24:291-315.
30. Kirkpatrick M, Hall D W. Sexual selection and sex linkage. Evolution 2004, 58:683-691.
31. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions M D, Morley J. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2003, 342:335-352.
32. Kokko H, Brooks R, McNamara J M, Houston A I. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2002, 269:1331-1340.
33. LaMunyon C W. Increased fecundity, as a function of multiple mating, in an arctiid moth, Utetheisa ornatrix. Ecol. Entomol. 1997, 22:69-73.
34. LaMunyon C W, Eisner T. Postcopulatory sexual selection in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1993, 90:4689-4692.
35. LaMunyon C W, Eisner T. Spermatophore size as determinant of paternity in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1994, 91:7081-7084.
36. Lynch M, Walsh B. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits 1998, Sunderland Associates, Sunderland, MA
37. Reeve H K, Pfennig D W. Genetic biases for showy males: are some genetic systems especially conducive to sexual selection?. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100:1089-1094.
38. Ridley M. Mating frequency and fecundity in insects. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 1988, 63:509-549.
39. Sharma V L. Chromosome studies on two species of moths. Bionature 1999, 19:65-67.
40. Thornhill R, Alcock J. The evolution of insect mating systems 1983, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA
41. Traut W, Marec F. Sex chromosome differentiation in some species of Lepidoptera (Insecta). Chromosome Res. 1997, 5:283-291.
42. Trivers R L. Parental investment and sexual selection. Sexual selection and the descent of man 1972, 136-179. Campbell B. Pp., , ed., Aldine Publishing Co., London, U.K
43. Vahed K. The function of nuptial feeding in insects: a review of empirical studies. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 1998, 73:43-78.
44. Wiklund C, Kaitala A. Sexual selection for large male size in a polyandrous butterfly: the effect of body-size on male versus female reproductive success in Pieris napi. Behav. Ecol. 1995, 6:6-13.
45. Yasui Y. The genetic benefits of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1998, 13:246-250.