Sexual behaviour: Conflict, cooperation and coevolution

Social Behaviour: Genes, Ecology and Evolution

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 230-266

  Pizzari, Tommaso ^a   Bonduriansky, Russell ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863818462     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511781360.021     Document Type: Chapter

References (255)

1. Alatalo, R. V., Höglund, J., Lundberg, A. & Sutherland, W. J. (1992) Evolution of black grouse leks: female preferences benefit males in larger leks. Behavioral Ecology,3, 53-59.
2. Alonzo, S. H. & Pizzari, T. (2010) Male fecundity stimulation: conflict and cooperation within and between the sexes. American Naturalist, 175, 174-185.
3. Andersson, J., Borg-Karlson, A.-K. & Wiklund, C. (2000) Sexual cooperation and conflict in butterflies: a male-transferred anti-aphrodisiac reduces harassment of recently mated females. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 267, 1271-1275.
4. Andersson, M. (1994) Sexual Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5. Andersson, M. & Simmons, L. W. (2006) Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 21, 296-302.
6. Andersson, S., Pryke, S., Ornborg, J., Lawes, M. J. & Andersson, M. (2002) Multiple receivers, multiple ornaments, and a trade-off between agonistic and epigamic signaling in a widowbird. American Naturalist,160, 683-691.
7. Aristotle (350 BCE) History of Animals. Books IV-VI. Loeb Classical Library 438. London: Heinemann, 1970.
8. Arkush, K. D., Giese, A. R., Mendonca, H. L. et al. (2002) Resistance to three pathogens in the endangered winter-run chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha): effects of inbreeding and major histocompatibility complex genotypes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,59, 966-975.
9. Arnqvist, G. & Nilsson, T. (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Animal Behaviour, 60, 145-164.
10. Arnqvist, G. & Rowe, L. (2005) Sexual Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11. Baker, R. R. (1983) Insect territoriality. Annual Review of Entomology, 28, 65-89.
12. Bakker, T. C. M. & Pomiankowski, A. (1995) The genetic basis of female mate preferences. Journal of Evolutionary Biology,8, 129-171.
13. Basolo, A. L. (1990) Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science, 250, 808-810.
14. Bateman, A. J. (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349-368.
15. Bedhomme, S. & Chippindale, A. K. (2007) Irreconcilable differences: when sexual dimorphism fails to resolve sexual conflict. In: Sex, Size and Gender Roles: Evolutionary Studies of Sexual Size Dimorphism, ed. D. I. Fairbairn, W.U. Blanckenhorn & T. Székely. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 185-194.
16. Beecher, M. & Beecher, I. (1979) Sociobiology of bank swallows: reproductive strategy of the male. Science, 205, 1282-1285.
17. Birkhead, T. R. & Møller A. P., eds. (1998) Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection. London: Academic Press.
18. Bjork, A. & Pitnick, S. (2006) Intensity of sexual selection along the anisogamy-isogamy continuum. Nature, 441, 742-745.
19. Blows, M. W. (2007) A tale of two matrices: multivariate approaches in evolutionary biology. Journal of Evolutionary Biology,20,1-8.
20. Blows, M. W., Chenoweth, S. F. & Hine, E. (2004) Orientation of the genetic variance-covariance matrix and the fitness surface for multiple male sexually selected traits. American Naturalist,163,329-340.
21. Blumenstiel, J. P. (2007) Sperm competition can drive a male-biased mutation rate. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 249, 624-632.
22. Bonduriansky, R. (2001) The evoluton of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society,76, 305-339.
23. Bonduriansky, R. (2007) The evolution of condition dependent sexual dimorphism. American Naturalist, 169, 9-19.
24. Bonduriansky, R. & Chenoweth, S. F. (2009) Intralocus sexual conflict. Trends in Ecology and Evolution,24, 280-288.
25. Bonduriansky, R. & Day, T. (2009) Nongenetic inheritance and its evolutionary implications. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics,40,103-125.
26. Bonduriansky, R. & Head, M. (2007) Maternal and paternal condition effects on offspring phenotype in Telostylinus angusticollis (Diptera: Neriidae). Journal of Evolutionary Biology,20, 2379-2388.
27. Bonduriansky, R. & Rowe, L. (2003) Interactions among mechanisms of sexual selection on male body size and head shape in a sexually dimorphic fly. Evolution, 57, 2046-2053.
28. Bonduriansky, R. & Rowe, L. (2005) Intralocus sexual conflict and the genetic architecture of sexually dimorphic traits in Prochyliza xanthostoma (Diptera: Piophilidae). Evolution,59, 1965-1975.
29. Borgia, G. (1979) Sexual selection and the evolution of mating systems. In: Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects, ed. M. S. Blum & N. A. Blum. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 19-80
30. Bradbury, J. W. & Gibson, R. M. (1983) Leks and mate choice. In: Mate Choice, ed. P. Bateson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 109-138.
31. Brommer, J. E., Kirkpatrick, M., Qvarnstrom, A. & Gustafsson, L. (2007) The intersexual genetic correlation for lifetime fitness in the wild and its implications for sexual selection. PLoS ONE,2 (1), e744.
32. Brooks, R. & Couldridge, V. (1999) Multiple sexual ornaments coevolve with multiple mating preferences. American Naturalist, 154,37-45.
33. Brown, J. L. (1997) A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behavioral Ecology, 8, 60-65.
34. Carrington, M., Nelson, G. W., Martin, M. P. et al. (1999) HLA and HIV-1: heterozygote advantage and B*35-Cw*04 disadvantage. Science,283, 1748-1752.
35. Carvalho, G. B., Kapahi, P., Anderson, D. J. & Benzer, S. (2006) Allocrine modulation of appetite by the sex peptide of Drosophila. Current Biology,16, 692-696.
36. Chapman, T., Bangham, I., Vinti, G. et al. (2003) The sex peptide of Drosophila melanogaster: female post-mating responses analyzed by using RNA interference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,100, 9923-9928.
37. Childress, D. & Hartl, D. L. (1972) Sperm preference in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 71, 417-427.
38. Chippindale, A. K., Gibson, I. R. & Rice, W. R. (2001) Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between the sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA,98,1671-1675.
39. Clutton-Brock, T. (2007) Sexual selection in males and females. Science, 318,1882-1885.
40. Clutton-Brock, T. H. & Parker, G. A. (1992) Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. Quarterly Review of Biology, 67, 437-456.
41. Clutton-Brock, T. H. & Parker, G. A. (1995) Sexual coercion in animal societies. Animal Behaviour,49,1345-1365.
42. Cohen, J. (1969) Why so many sperms? An essay on the arithmetic of reproduction. Science Progress,57, 23-41.
43. Cohen, J. (1973) Cross-overs, sperm redundancy and their close association. Heredity,31,408-413.
44. Cordero, A. (1995) Ejaculate substances that affect female insect reproductive physiology and behavior: honest or arbitrary? Journal of Theoretical Biology,192,453-461.
45. Córdoba-Aguilar, A. (1999) Male copulatory sensory stimulation induces female ejection of rival sperm in a damsel-fly. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 266, 779-784.
46. Cornell, S. I. & Tregenza, T. (2007) A new theory for the evolution of polyandry as a means of inbreeding avoidance. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 274, 2873-2879.
47. Cotton, S., Fowler, K. & Pomiankowski, A. (2004) Do sexual ornaments demonstrate heightened condition-dependent expression as predicted by the handicap hypothesis? Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 271, 771-783.
48. Crudgington, H. S., Beckerman, A. P., Brustle, L., Green, K. & Snook, R. R. (2005) Experimental removal and elevation of sexual selection: does sexual selection generate manipulative males and resistant females? American Naturalist, 165, S72-87.
49. Darwin, C. (1859) Onthe Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray.
50. Darwin, C. (1871) The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.
51. Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52. Day, T. & Bonduriansky, R. (2004) Intralocus sexual conflict can drive the evolution of genomic imprinting. Genetics, 167, 1537-1546.
53. Dewsbury, D. A. (2005) The Darwin-Bateman paradigm in historical context. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 45,831-837.
54. Duffy, K. G., Wrangham, R. W. & Silk, J. B. (2007) Male chimpanzees exchange political support for mating opportunities. Current Biology, 17, R586-587.
55. Dussourd, D. E., Ubik, K., Harvis, C. et al. (1988) Biparental defensive endowment of eggs with acquired plant alkaloid in the moth Utetheisa ornatrix. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 85,5992-5996.
56. Eberhard, W. G. (1996) Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
57. Eberhard, W. G. & Cordero, C. (1995) Sexual selection by cryptic female choice on male seminal products: a new bridge between sexual selection and reproductive physiology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10,493-496.
58. Emlen, D. J. (1994) Environmental control of horn length dimorphism in the beetle Onthophagus acuminatus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 256, 131-136.
59. Endler, J. A. (1986) Natural Selection in the Wild. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
60. Evans, J. P., Zane, L., Francescato, S. & Pilastro, A. (2003) Directional postcopulatory sexual selection revealed by artificial insemination. Nature, 421,360-363.
61. Fedorka, K. M. & Mousseau, T. A. (2004) Female mating bias results in conflicting sex-specific offspring fitness. Nature, 429, 65-67.
62. Field, S. A. & Keller, M. A. (1993) Alternative mating tactics and female mimicry as post-copulatory mate-guarding behaviour in the parasitic wasp Cotesia rubecula. Animal Behaviour, 46, 1183-1189.
63. Fisher, R. A. (1930) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
64. Fitzpatrick, M. J. (2004) Pleiotropy and the genomic location of sexually selected genes. American Naturalist, 163, 800-808.
65. Fiumera, A. C., Dumont, B. L. & Clark, A. G. (2005) Sperm competitive ability in Drosophila melanogaster associated with variation in male reproductive proteins. Genetics, 169, 243-257.
66. Fiumera, A. C., Dumont, B. L. & Clark, A. G. (2006) Natural variation in male-induced ‘cost-of-mating’ and allele-specific association with male reproductive genes in Drosophila melanogaster. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 361, 355-361.
67. Fiumera, A. C., Dumont, B. L. & Clark, A. G. (2007) Associations between sperm competition and natural variation in male reproductive genes on the third chromosome of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics, 176, 1245-1260.
68. Foerster, K., Coulson, T., Sheldon, B.C. et al. (2007) Sexually antagonistic genetic variation for fitness in red deer. Nature, 447, 1107-1109.
69. Forsgren, E., Amundsen, T., Borg, A. A. & Bjelvenmark, J.(2004) Unusually dynamic sex roles in a fish. Nature, 429, 551-554.
70. Forsyth, A. & Alcock, J. (1990) Female mimicry and resource defense polygyny by males of a tropical rove beetle, Leistrophus versicolor (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 26, 325-330.
71. Foster, K. R., Wenseleers, T. & Ratnieks, F. L. W. (2001) Spite: Hamilton’s unproven theory. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 38, 229-238.
72. Foster, M. S. (1983) Disruption, dispersion, and dominance in lek-breeding birds. American Naturalist, 122, 53-72.
73. Fu, P., Neff, B.D. & Gross, M.R. (2001) Tactic-specific success in sperm competition. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 268, 1105-1112.
74. Gavrilets, S. & Hayashi, T. I. (2006) The dynamics of two-and three-way sexual conflicts over mating. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 361, 345-354.
75. Gavrilets, S. & Waxman, D. (2002) Sympatric speciation by sexual conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 99, 10533-10538.
76. Gavrilets, S., Arnqvist, G. & Friberg, U. (2001) The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 268, 531-539.
77. Getty, T. (1998) Handicap signalling: when fecundity and viability do not add up. Animal Behaviour, 56, 127-130.
78. Gillott, C. (2003) Male accessory gland secretions: modulators of female reproductive physiology and behavior. Annual Review of Entomology, 48, 163-184.
79. Gongalves, D., Matos, R., Fagundes, T. & Oliveira, R. (2005) Bourgeois males of the peacock blenny, Salaria pavo, discriminate female mimics from females? Ethology, 111, 559-572.
80. Greenfield, M. D. (1994) Synchronous and alternating choruses in insects and anurans: common mechanisms and diverse functions. American Zoologist, 34,605-615.
81. Griffith, S. C., Owens, I. P. F. & Burke, T. (1999) Environmental determination of a sexually selected trait. Nature, 400, 358-360.
82. Gross, M. R. (1996) Alternative reproductive strategies and tactics: diversity within sexes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 11, A92-98.
83. Gwynne, D. T. (1984) Courtship feeding increases female reproductive success in bushcrickets. Nature, 307, 361-363.
84. Gwynne, D. T. (1988) Courtship feeding in katydids benefits the mating male’s offspring. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 23, 373-377.
85. Gwynne, D. T. & Simmons, L. W. (1990) Experimental reversal of courtship roles in an insect. Nature, 346, 172-174.
86. Elaerty, W., fagadeeshan, S., Kulathinal, R. J. et al. (2007) Evolution in the fast lane: rapidly evolving sex-and reproduction-related genes in Drosophila species. Genetics, 177, 1321-1335.
87. Hamilton, W. D. & Zuk, M. (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science, 218, 384-387.
88. Hanlon, R. T., Naud, M.-J., Shaw, P. W. & Havenhand, J. N. (2005) Transient sexual mimicry leads to fertilization. Nature, 433, 212.
89. Hardling, R. & Bergsten, J. (2006) Nonrandom mating preserves intrasexual polymorphism and stops population differentiation in sexual conflict. American Naturalist, 167, 401-409.
90. Head, M. L., Hunt, J., fennions, M. D. & Brooks, R. (2005) The indirect benefits of mating with attractive males outweigh the direct costs. PLoS Biology, 3(2), e 33.
91. Hedrick, A. V. (1988) Female choice and the heritability of attractive male traits: an empirical study. American Naturalist, 132, 267-276.
92. Heifetz Y., Lung, O., Frongillo, E. A. & Wolfner, M. F. (2000) The Drosophila seminal fluid protein Acp26Aa stimulates release of oocytes by the ovary. Current Biology, 10, 99-102.
93. Hine, E., Chenoweth, S. F. & Blows, M. W. (2004) Multivariate quantitative genetics and the lek paradox: genetic variance male sexually selected traits of Drosophila serrata under field conditions. Evolution, 58, 2754-2762.
94. Hodgson, D. J. & Hosken, D. J. (2006) Sperm competition promotes the exploitation of rival ejaculates. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 243, 230-234.
95. Hoglund, J. (2003) Lek-kin in birds: provoking theory and surprising new results. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 40, 249-253.
96. Hoglund, J., Alatalo, R. V., Lundberg, A., Rintamaki, P. T. & Lindell, J. (1999) Microsatellite markers reveal the potential for kin selection on black grouse leks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 266, 813-816.
97. Holland, B. &Rice, W. R. (1998) Perspective. Chase-awaysex-ual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution, 52, 1-7.
98. Holland, B. & Rice, W. R. (1999) Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 96, 5083-5088.
99. Houle, D. & Kondrashov, A. S. (2002) Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 269, 97-104.
100. Howard, R. D., Moorman, R. S. & Whiteman, H. H. (1997) Differential effects of mate competition and mate choice on eastern tiger salamanders. Animal Behaviour, 53, 1345-1356.
101. Hughes, A. L. & Nei, M. (1992) Maintenance of Mhc polymorphism. Nature, 355, 402-403.
102. Hughes, A. L. & Yeager, M. (1998) Natural selection at Major Compatibility Complex loci of vertebrates. Annual Review of Genetics, 32, 415-435.
103. Hunt, J. & Simmons, L. W. (2000) Maternal and paternal effects on offspring phenotype in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. Evolution, 54, 936-941.
104. Hunt, J., Breuker, C. J., Sadowski, J. A. & Moore, A. J. (2009) Male-male competition, female mate choice and their interaction: determining total sexual selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 22, 13-26.
105. Ilmonen, P., Penn, D. J., Damjanovich, K. et al. (2007) Major histocompatibility complex heterozygosity reduces fitness in experimentally infected mice. Genetics, 176, 2501-2508
106. Iwasa, Y. & Pomiankowski, A. (1994) The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution, 48, 853-867.
107. Iwasa, Y. & Pomiankowski, A. (1995) Continual change in mate preferences. Nature, 377, 420-422.
108. feffery, K. J. M., Siddiqui, A. A., Bunce, M. et al. (2000) The influence of HLA class I alleles and heterozygosity on the outcome of human T cell lymphotropic virus type T infection. Journal of Immunology, 165,7278-7284.
109. Johnstone, R. A. & Keller, L. (2000) How males can gain by harming their mates: sexual conflict, seminal toxins, and the cost of mating. American Naturalist, 156, 368-377.
110. Johnstone, R. A., Reynolds, J. D. & Deutsch, J. C. (1996) Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution, 50, 1382-1391.
111. Jukema, J. & Piersma, T. (2006) Permanent female mimics in a lekking shorebird. Biology Letters, 2, 161-164.
112. Kapelinikov, A., Rivlin, P. K., Hoy, R. R. & Heifetz, Y. (2008) Tissue remodeling: a mating-induced differentiation program for the Drosophila oviduct. BMC Developmental Biology, 8,114.
113. Kempenaers, B. (2007) Mate choice and genetic quality: a review of the heterozygosity theory. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 37, 189-278.
114. Kirkpatrick, M. (1982) Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution, 36, 1-12.
115. Kirkpatrick, M. (1986) The handical mechanism of sexual selection does not work. American Naturalist, 127, 222-240.
116. Kirkpatrick, M. (1996) Good genes and direct selection in the evolution of mating preferences. Evolution, 50, 2125-2140.
117. Kirkpatrick, M. & Barton, N. H. (1997) The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 94, 1282-1286.
118. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M. J. (1991) The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature, 350, 33-38.
119. Kokko, H. & Lindstrom, J. (1996) Kin selection and the evolution of leks: whose success do young males maximize? Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 263, 919-923.
120. Kokko, H. & Monaghan, P. (2001) Predicting the direction of sexual selection. Ecology Letters, 4, 159-165.
121. Kokko, H. & Ots, I. (2006) When not to avoid inbreeding. Evolution, 60, 467-475.
122. Kokko, H., Jennions, M. D. & Brooks, R. (2006) Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 37, 43-66.
123. Kraaijeveld, K., Kraaijeveld-Smit, F. J. L. & Komdeur, J. (2007) The evolution of mutual ornamentation. Animal Behaviour, 74, 657-677.
124. Krause, J., Croft, D. P. & James, R. (2007) Social network theory in the behavioural sciences: potential applications. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 62,15-27.
125. Krakauer, A. H. (2005) Kin selection and cooperative courtship in wild turkeys. Nature, 434,69-72.
126. Lande, R. (1980) Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution, 34, 292-305.
127. Lande, R. (1981) Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 78, 3721-3725.
128. Lande, R. & Kirkpatrick, M. (1989) Ecological speciation by sexual selection. J ournal of Theoretical Biology, 133, 85-98.
129. Langefors, A., Lohm, J., Grahn, M., Andersen, O. & von Schantz, T. (2001) Association between major histocompatibility complex class IIB alleles and resistance to Aeromonas salmonicida in Atlantic salmon. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 268, 479-485.
130. Laufer, H. & Ahl, J. S. B. (1995) Mating behavior and methyl farnesoate levels in male morphotypes of the spider crab, Libinia emarginata (Leach). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 193,15-20.
131. Le Galliard, J. F., Fitze, P. S., Ferriere, R. & Clobert, J. (2005) Sex ratio bias, male aggression, and population collapse in lizards. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 102, 18231-18236.
132. Lessells, C.M. (2005) Why are males bad for females? Models for the evolution of damaging male behavior. American Naturalist, 165, 546-563.
133. Lessells C. M. (2006) The evolutionary outcome of sexual conflict. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 361, 301-317.
134. Liu, H. & Kubli, E. (2003) Sexpeptide is the molecular basis of the sperm effect in Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 100, 9929-9933.
135. Lohm, J., Grahn, M., Langefors, A. et al. (2002) Experimental evidence for major histocompatibility complex-allele-specific resistance to a bacterial infection. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 269, 2029-2033.
136. Loiselle, B. A., Ryder, T. B., Duraes, R. et al. (2007) Kin selection does not explain male aggregation at leks of 4 man-akin species. Behavioral Ecology, 18, 287-291.
137. Lorch, P. D., Bussiere, L. & Gwynne, D. T. (2008) Quantifying the potential for sexual dimorphism using upper limits on Bateman gradients. Behaviour, 145, 1-24.
138. Lovlie, FI., Cornwallis, C. K. & Pizzari, T. (2005) Male mounting alone reduces female promiscuity in the fowl. Current Biology, 15, 1222-1227.
139. Manning, J. T. & Chamberlain, A. T. (1994) Sib competition and sperm competitiveness: an answer to ‘why so many sperms?’ and the recombination/sperm number correlation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 256, 177-182.
140. Maynard-Smith, J. (1977) Parental investment: a prospective analysis. Animal Behaviour, 25, 1-9.
141. Maynard-Smith, J. (1978) The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
142. McGraw, L. A., Gibson, G., Clark, A. G. & Wolfner, M. F. (2004) Genes regulated by mating, sperm, or seminal proteins in mated female Drosophila melanogaster. Current Biology, 14: 1509-1514.
143. McGraw, L. A., Clark, A. G. & Wolfner, M. F. (2008) Postmating gene expression profiles of female Drosophila mel-anogaster in response to time and to four male accessory gland proteins. Genetics, 179, 1395-408.
144. Mead, L. S. & Arnold, S. J. (2004) Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19, 264-271.
145. Milinski, M. (2006) The major histocompatibility complex, sexual selection, and mate choice. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 37,159-186.
146. Miller, C. W. & Moore, A. J. (2007) Apotential resolution of the lek paradox through indirect genetic effects. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 274, 1279-1286.
147. Moczek, A. P. & Emlen, D. J. (2000) Male horn dimorphism in the scarab beetle, Onthophagus taurus: do alternative reproductive tactics favour alternative phenotypes? Animal Behaviour, 59,459-466.
148. Moller, A. P. & Pomiankowski, A. (1993) Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 32, 167-176.
149. Moore, A. J. (1990) The inheritance of social dominance, mating behaviour, and attractiveness to mates in Nauphoeta cinerea. Animal Behaviour, 39, 388-397.
150. Moore, A. J. & Moore, P. J. (1999) Balancing sexual selection through opposing mate choice and male competition. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 266,711-716.
151. Moore, A. J. & Pizzari, T. (2005) Quantitative genetic models of sexual conflict based on interacting phenotypes. American Naturalist, 165, S88-97.
152. Moreira, P. L., Nunes, V. L., Martin, J. & Paulo, O. S. (2007) Copulatory plugs do not assure high first male fertilisation success: sperm displacement in a lizard. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 62, 281-288.
153. Morrow, E. H., Arnqvist, G. & Pitnick, S. (2003) Adaptation versus pleiotropy: why do males harm their mates? Behavioral Ecology, 14, 802-806.
154. Mousseau, T. A. & Roff, D. A. (1987) Natural selection and the heritability of fitness components. Heredity, 59,181-197.
155. Murphy, C. G. (1998) Interaction-independent sexual selection and the mechanisms of sexual selection. Evolution, 52, 8-18.
156. Neff, B. D. & Stoltz, J. A. (2006) Sperm competition in a fish with external fertilization: the contribution of sperm number, speed, and length. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 19, 1873-1881.
157. Neubaum, D. M. & Wolfner, M. F. (1999) Mated Drosophila melanogaster females require a seminal fluid protein, Acp36DE, to store sperm efficiently. Genetics, 153, 845-847.
158. Nevo, E. & Beiles, A. (1992) Selection for class-Ii Mhc heterozygosity by parasites in subterranean mole rats. Experientia, 48,512-515.
159. Oliveira, R., Taborski, M. & Brockman, J. H. (2008) Alternative Reproductive Tactics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
160. Omland, K. E. (1996) Female mallard mating preferences for multiple male ornaments. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 39, 353-360.
161. Owens, I. P. F. & Thompson, D. B. A. (1994) Sex differences, sex ratios and sex roles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 258, 93-99.
162. Packer, C., Gilbert, D. A., Pusey, A. E. & O’Brien, S. J. (1991) A molecular genetic analysis of kinship and cooperation in African lions. Nature, 351, 562-565.
163. Panhuis, T. M., Clark, N. L. & Swanson, W. J. (2006) Rapid evolution of reproductive proteins in abalone and Drosophila. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 361, 261-268.
164. Parker, G. A. (1970) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biological Reviews, 45, 525-567.
165. Parker, G. A. (1979) Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects, ed. M. S. Blum & N. A. Blum. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 123-166.
166. Parker, G. A. (1982) Why are there so many tiny sperm? Sperm competition and the maintenance of two sexes. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 96, 281-294.
167. Parker, G. A. (2006) Sexual conflictover mating and fertilization: an overview. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 361, 235-259.
168. Parker, G. A. & Begon, M. E. (1993) Sperm competition games: sperm size and sperm number under gametic control. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 253, 255-262.
169. Parker, G. A. & Simmons, L. W. (1996) Parental investment and the control of sexual selection: predicting the direction of sexual competition. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 263, 315-321.
170. Parker, G. A., Smith, V. G. F. & Baker, R. R. (1972) Origin and evolution of gamete dimorphism and male-female phenomenon. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 36, 529-553.
171. Paterson, S., Wilson, K. & Pemberton, J. M. (1998) Major histocompatibility complex variation associated with juvenile survival and parasite resistance in a large unmanaged ungulate population (Ovis aries L.). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 95,3714-3719.
172. Peng, J., Zipperlen, P. & Kubli, E. (2005) Drosophila sex-peptide stimulates female innate immune system after mating via the Toll and Imd pathways. Current Biology, 15, 1690-1694.
173. Penn, D. J., Damjanovich, K. & Potts, W. K. (2002) MHC heterozygosity confers a selective advantage against multi-ple-strain infections. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 99, 11260-11264.
174. Petrie, M., Krupa, A. & Burke, T. (1999) Peacocks lek with relatives even in the absence of social and environmental cues. Nature, 401, 155-157.
175. Pischedda, A. & Chippindale, A.K. (2006) Intralocus sexual conflict diminishes the benefits of sexual selection. PLoS Biology 4 (11), e356.
176. Pitnick, S., Spicer, G. S. & Markow, T. A. (1995) How long is a giant sperm? Nature, 375, 109.
177. Pitnick, S. Miller, G. T., Reagan, J. & Holland, B. (2001) Males’ evolutionary responses to experimental removal of sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 268, 1071-1080.
178. Pitnick, S., Wolfner, M. F. & Suarez, S. S. (2009) Ejaculate-female and sperm-female interactions. In: Sperm Biology: an Evolutionary Perspective, ed. T. R. Birkhead, D. J. Hosken & S. Pitnick. London: Academic Press, pp. 247-304.
179. Pizzari, T. (2001) Indirect female choice through manipulation of male behaviour by female fowl, Gallus g. domesti-cus. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 268, 181-186.
180. Pizzari, T. (2006) Evolution: the paradox of sperm leviathans. Current Biology, 16, R462-464.
181. Pizzari, T. & Birkhead, T. R. (2000) Female feral fowl eject sperm of subdominant males. Nature, 405, 787-789.
182. Pizzari, T. & Parker, G. A. (2009) Sperm competition and sperm phenotype. In: Sperm Biology: an Evolutionary Perspective, ed. T. R. Birkhead, D. J. Hosken & S. Pitnick. London: Academic Press, pp. 207-245.
183. Pizzari, T. & Snook, R. R. (2003) Perspective. Sexual conflict and sexual selection: chasing away paradigm shifts. Evolution, 57, 1223-1236.
184. Pizzari, T., Cornwallis, C. K., Lovlie, H., fakobsson, S. & Birkhead, T. R. (2003) Sophisticated sperm allocation in a bird. Nature, 426, 70-74.
185. Pizzari, T., Lovlie, H. & Cornwallis, C. K. (2004) Sex-specific, counteracting responses to inbreeding in a bird. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 271, 2115-2121.
186. Poiani A., 2006. Complexity of seminal fluid: a review. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 60, 289-310.
187. Pomiankowski, A. & Moller, A. P. (1995) A resolution of the lek paradox. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 260, 21-29.
188. Pomiankowski, A., Iwasa, Y. & Nee, S. (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution, 45, 1422-1430.
189. Pound, N. (1999) Effects of morphine on electrically evoked contractions of the vas deferens in two congeneric rodent species differing in sperm competition intensity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 266,1755-1758.
190. Preston, B. T. & Stockley, P. (2006) The prospect of sexual competition stimulates premature and repeated ejaculation in a mammal. Current Biology, 16, R239-241.
191. Preston, B. T., Stevenson, I. R., Pemberton, J. M. & Wilson K. (2001) Dominant rams lose out by sperm depletion. Nature, 409, 681-682.
192. Priest, N. K., Roach, D. A. & Galloway, L. F. (2007) Cross-generational fitness benefits of mating and seminal fluid. Biology Letters, 4, 6-8.
193. Priest, N. K., Galloway, L. F. & Roach, D. A. (2008) Mating frequency and inclusive fitness in Drosophila melanogaster. American Naturalist, 171, 10-21.
194. Pruett-fones, S. (1992) Independent versus nonindependent mate choice: do females copy each other? American Naturalist, 140, 1000-1009.
195. Pryke, S. R. & Griffith, S. C. (2006) Red dominates black: agonistic signalling among head morphs in the colour polymorphic Gouldian finch. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 273,949-957.
196. Pryke, S. R. & Griffith, S. C. (2007) The relative role of male vs. female mate choice in maintaining assortative pairing among discrete colour morphs. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 20, 1512-1521.
197. Queller, D. C. (1997) Why do females care more than males? Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 264, 1555-1557.
198. Rankin, D. I., Bargum, K. & Kokko, H. (2007) The tragedy of the commons in evolutionary biology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 22, 643-651.
199. Ravi Ram, K. & Wolfner, M. F. (2007a) Seminal influences: Drosophila Acps and the molecular interplay between males and females during reproduction. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 47, 1-19.
200. Ravi Ram, K. & Wolfner, M. F. (2007b) Sustained post-mating response in Drosophila melanogaster requires multiple seminal fluid proteins. PLoS Genetics, 3 (12), e238.
201. Ravi Ram, K., Sirot, L. K. & Wolfner, M. F. (2006) A predicted seminal astacin-like protease is required for the processing of reproductive proteins in Drosophila melanogaster. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 103, 10674-10679.
202. Reusch, T. B. H., Haberli, M. A., Aeschlimann, P. B. & Milinski, M. (2001) Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature, 414,300-302.
203. Reynolds, J. D. & Gross, M. R. (1990) Costs and benefits of female mate choice: is there a lek paradox? American Naturalist, 136, 230-243.
204. Rhen, T. (2000) Sex-limited mutations and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution, 54,37-43.
205. Rice, W. R. (1984) Sex chromosomes and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Evolution, 38,735-742.
206. Rice, W. R. (1996) Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature, 381, 232-234.
207. Rice, W. R. & Chippindale, A. K. (2001) Intersexual ontogenetic conflict. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14,685-693.
208. Rivera, A. C., Andres, J. A., Cordoba-Aguilar, A. & Utzeri, C. (2004) Postmating sexual selection: allopatric evolution of sperm competition mechanisms and genital morphology in calopterygid damselflies (Insecta: Odonata). Evolution, 58, 349-359.
209. Robertson, H. M. (1985) Female dimorphism and mating behaviour in a damselfly, Ischnura ramburi: females mimicking males. Animal Behaviour, 33, 805-809.
210. Rodd, F. H., Hughes, K. A., Grether, G. & Baril, C. T. (2002) A possible non-sexual origin of a mate preference: are male guppies mimicking fruit? Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 269, 475-481.
211. Rowe, L. & Houle, D. (1996) The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 263,1415-1421.
212. Ryan, M.J. (1998) Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science, 281, 1999-2002.
213. Scott, D. (1986) Sexual mimicry regulates the attractiveness of mated Drosophila melanogaster females. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 83, 8429-8433.
214. Senseney, H. L., Briles, W. E., Abplanalp, H. & Taylor, R. L. (2000) Allelic complementation between MHC haplotypes B-Q and B-17 increases regression of Rous sarcomas. Poultry Science, 79, 1736-1740.
215. Servedio, M. R. & Kirkpatrick, M. (1996) The evolution of mate choice copying by indirect selection. American Naturalist, 148, 848-867.
216. Sheldon, B. C. (2001) Differential allocation: tests, mechanisms and implications. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15, 397-402.
217. Shine, R., Phillips, B., Waye, H., LeMaster, M. & Mason, R. T. (2001) Benefits of female mimicry in snakes. Nature, 414, 267.
218. Shorey, L., Piertney, S., Stone, J. & Hoglund, J. (2000) Fine-scale genetic structuring on Manacus manacus leks. Nature, 408, 352-353.
219. Shuster, S. M. & Wade, M. J. (2003) Mating Systems and Strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
220. Shuster, S. M. &Wade, M. J. (2005) Don’t throw Bateman out with the bathwater! Integrative and Comparative Biology, 45, 945-951.
221. Simmons, L. W. (2001) Sperm Competition and its Evolutionary Consequences in the Insects. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
222. Simmons, L. W. (2005) The evolution of polyandry: sperm competition, sperm selection, and offspring viability. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 36, 125-146.
223. Sirot, L. K., Brockmann, H. J., Marinis, C. & Muschett, G. (2003) Maintenance of a female-limited polymorphism in Ischnura ramburi (Zygoptera: Coenagrionidae). Animal Behaviour, 66, 763-775.
224. Smedley, S. R. & Eisner, T. (1996) Sodium: a male moth’s gift to its offspring. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 93, 809-813.
225. Snook, R. (2001) Sexual selection: conflict, kindness and chicanery. Current Biology, 11, R337-341.
226. Snyder, B. F. & Gowaty, P. A. (2007) Areappraisal of Bateman’s classic study of intrasexual selection. Evolution, 61, 2457-2468.
227. Stewart, A. D., Morrow, E. H. & Rice, W. R. (2005) Assessing putative interlocus sexual conflict in Drosophila mela-nogaster using experimental evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272, 2029-2035.
228. Stoltz, J. A. & Neff, B. D. (2006) Male size and mating tactic influence proximity to females during sperm competition in bluegill sunfish. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 59, 811-818.
229. Stutt, A. D. & Siva-Jothy, M. T. (2001) Traumatic insemination and sexual conflict in the bed bug Cimex lectular-ius. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 98, 5683-5687.
230. Tatarnic, N. J., Cassis, G. & Hochuli, D. F. (2006) Traumatic insemination in the plant bug genus Coridromius Signoret (Heteroptera: Miridae). Biology Letters, 2, 58-61.
231. Taylor, M., Wedell, N. & Hosken, D. (2007) The heritability of attractiveness. Current Biology, 17, R959-960.
232. Taylor, P. D. & Williams, G. C. (1982) The lek paradox is not resolved. Theoretical Population Biology, 22, 392-409.
233. ten Cate, C., Verzijden, M. & Etman, E. (2006) Sexual imprinting can induce sexual preferences for exaggerated parental traits. Current Biology, 16, 1128-1132.
234. Thornhill, R. (1983) Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. American Naturalist, 122, 765.
235. Thursz, M. R., Thomas, H. C., Greenwood, B. M. & Hill, A. V. S. (1997) Heterozygote advantage for HLA class-II type in hepatitis B virus infection. Nature Genetics, 17, 11-12.
236. Tomkins, J. L. & Hazel, W. (2007) The status of the conditional evolutionarily stable strategy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 22, 522-528.
237. Trivers, R. L. (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, 1871-1971, ed. B. Campbell. Chicago, IL: Aldine, pp. 136-179.
238. Valera, F., Hoi, H. & Kristin, A. (2003) Male shrikes punish unfaithful females. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 14, 403-408.
239. van Gossum, H. & Sherratt, T. M. (2008) A dynamical model of sexual harassment and its implications for female-limited polymorphism. Ecological Modelling, 210, 212-220.
240. van Homrigh, A., Higgie, M., McGuigan, K. & Blows, M. W. (2007) The depletion of genetic variance by sexual selection. Current Biology, 17, 528-532.
241. Warner, R. R., Shapiro, D. Y., Marcanato, A. & Petersen, C. W. (1995) Sexual conflict-males with the highest mating success convey the lowest fertilization benefits to females. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 262, 135-139.
242. Wedell, N. (1994) Dual function of the bushcricket spermato-phore. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 258,181-185.
243. Wedell, N. & Tregenza, T. (1999) Successful fathers sire successful sons. Evolution, 53, 620-625.
244. Wedell, N., Gage, M. f. G. & Parker, G. A. (2002) Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 17, 313-320.
245. West, S. A., Griffin, A. S. & Gardner, A. (2007) Social semantics: altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 20, 415-432.
246. Widemo, F. & Owens, I. P. F. (1995) Lek size, male mating skew and the evolution of lekking. Nature, 373, 148-151.
247. Wigby, S. & Chapman, T. (2004) Female resistance to male harm evolves in response to manipulation of sexual conflict. Evolution, 58, 1028-1037.
248. Wigby, S. & Chapman, T. (2005) Sex peptide causes mating costs in female Drosophila melanogaster. Current Biology, 15,316-321.
249. Wiklund, C., Kaitala, A., Lindfors, V. & Abenius, I. (1993) Polyandry and its effect on female reproduction in the green-veined white butterfly (Pieris napi L.). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 33, 25-33.
250. Williams, G. C. (1975) Sex and Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
251. Willmott, H. E. & Foster, S. A. (1995) The effects of rival male interaction on courtship and parental care in the four-spine stickleback, Apeltes quadracus. Behaviour, 132, 997-1010.
252. Wilson, E. O. (1975) Sociobiology: the New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
253. Wright, D., Kerje, S., Brändström, H. et al. (2008) The genetic architecture of a female sexual ornament. Evolution, 62, 86-98.
254. Yapici, N., Kim, Y. J., Ribeiro, C. & Dickson, B. J. (2008) Arecep-tor that mediates the post-mating switch in Drosophila reproductive behaviour. Nature, 451,33-37.
255. Zahavi, A. (1975) Mate selection: selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205-214.