Heightened condition dependence is not a general feature of male eyespan in stalk-eyed flies (Diptera: Diopsidae)

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 1310-1316

  Cotton, S ^a   Fowler, K ^a   Pomiankowski, A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Condition dependence; Cynodiopsis dalmanni; Eyespan; Handicap; Ornament; Sexual selection; Sphyracephala beccarri; Stalk eyed flies

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTION; EYE; FLY; MATE CHOICE; ORNAMENTATION; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EYE; FLY; FOOD DEPRIVATION; GENETIC SELECTION; HISTOLOGY; MALE; MORPHOMETRICS; PHYSIOLOGY; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL DEVELOPMENT; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; BODY WEIGHTS AND MEASURES; DIPTERA; EYE; FOOD DEPRIVATION; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; SELECTION (GENETICS); SEX CHARACTERISTICS; SEX FACTORS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SPECIES SPECIFICITY;

DIOPSIDAE; DIPTERA; MARTES PENNANTI; SPHYRACEPHALA;

EID: 8144220682     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00754.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Andersson, M. 1986. Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences; sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40: 804-816.
2. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
3. Baker, R.H. & Wilkinson, G.S. 2001. Phylogenetic analysis of sexual dimorphism and eyespan allometry in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Evolution 55: 1373-1385.
4. Burkhardt, D. & De la Motte, I. 1985. Selective pressures, variability, and sexual dimorphism in stalk-eyed flies (Diopsidae). Naturwissenschaften. 72: 204-206.
5. Cotton, S., Fowler, K & Pomiankowski, A. 2004a. Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 271: 771-783.
6. Cotton, S., Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. 2004b. Condition dependence of sexual ornament size and variation in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni (Diptera: Diopsidae). Evolution 58: 1038-1046.
7. Crawley, M.J. 1993. GLIM for Ecologists. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK.
8. David, P., Hingle, A., Greig, D., Rutherford, A., Pomiankowski, A. & Fowler, K. 1998. Male sexual ornament size but not asymmetry reflects condition in stalk-eyed flies. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 265: 2211-2216.
9. David, P., Bjorksten, T., Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. 2000. Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature 406: 186-188.
10. Fisher, R.A. 1915. The evolution of sexual preference. Eugenics Rev. 7: 184-192.
11. Fisher, R.A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
12. Grafen, A. 1990. Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J. Theor. Biol. 144: 473-516.
13. Gullan, P.J. & Cranston, P.S. 1994. The Insects: an Outline of Entomology. Chapman and Hall, London.
14. Hingle, A., Fowler, K & Pomiankowski, A. 2001. Size-dependent mate preference in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Anim. Behav. 61: 589-595.
15. Hochberg-Stasny, T.A. 1985. Biology, Behaviour and Life Cycle of Sphyracephala brevicornis Say (Diptera: Diopsidae). MS thesis. University of West Virginia, Virginia.
16. Iwasa, Y. & Pomiankowski, A. 1994. The evolution of mate preferences for multiple handicaps. Evolution 48: 853-867.
17. Iwasa, Y. & Pomiankowski, A. 1999. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 200: 97-109.
18. Iwasa, Y., Pomiankowski, A. & Nee, S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The 'handicap' principle. Evolution 45: 1431-1442.
19. Johnstone, R.A. 1995. Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol. Rev. 70: 1-65.
20. Pomiankowski, A. 1987. Sexual selection: the handicap principle does work - sometimes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 231: 123-145.
21. Pomiankowski, A. 1988. The evolution of female mate preferences for male genetic quality. Oxford Surv. Evol. Biol. 5: 136-184.
22. Rice, W.R. 1989. Analysing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43: 223-225.
23. Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, F.J. 1995. Biometry, 3rd edn. Freeman, New York.
24. Wilkinson, G.S. & Dodson, G.N. 1997. Function and evolution of antlers and eye stalks in flies. In: The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids (J. Choe & B. Crespi, eds), pp. 310-328. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
25. Wilkinson, G.S. & Reillo, P.R. 1994. Female preference response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 255: 1-6.
26. Wilkinson, G. S., Kahler, H. & Baker, R.H. 1998. Evolution of female mating preferences in stalk-eyed flies. Behav. Ecol. 9: 525-533.