No evidence of sexual selection in a repetition of Bateman's classic study of Drosophila melanogaster

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 109, Issue 29, 2012, Pages 11740-11745

  Gowaty, Patricia Adair ^a,b   Kim, Yong Kyu ^c,d   Anderson, Wyatt W ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

^c University of Georgia   (United States)

^d EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Genetic parentage; Monogamy

Indexed keywords

ALLELE; ARTICLE; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; FEMALE; GENETIC PARENTAGE; GENOTYPE; MALE; MATING; MONOGAMY; NONHUMAN; PARENT; PHENOTYPE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGENY; REPRODUCTION; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ANIMALS; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; CROSSES, GENETIC; DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER; GENETIC FITNESS; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHENOTYPE; REPRODUCTION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER;

EID: 84863906562     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1207851109     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Bateman AJ (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity (Edinb) 2:349-368.
2. Darwin C (1871) The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (John Murray, London).
3. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, ed Campbell B (Aldine, Chicago, IL), pp 136-179.
4. Snyder BF, Gowaty PA (2007) A reappraisal of Bateman's classic study of intrasexual selection. Evolution 61:2457-2468. (Pubitemid 350045548)
5. Arnold SJ (1994) Bateman principles and the measurement of sexual selection in plants and animals. Am Nat 144:S126-S149.
6. Jones AG, Arguello JR, Arnold SJ (2002) Validation of Bateman's principles: A genetic study of sexual selection and mating patterns in the rough-skinned newt. Proc Biol Sci 269:2533-2539. (Pubitemid 36071833)
7. Jones AG, Rosenqvist G, Berglund A, Arnold SJ, Avise JC (2000) The Bateman gradient and the cause of sexual selection in a sex-role-reversed pipefish. Proc Biol Sci 267:677-680. (Pubitemid 30197838)
8. Dewsbury DA (2005) The Darwin-Bateman paradigm in historical context. Integr Comp Biol 45:831-837.
9. Tang-Martinez Z, Ryder TB (2005) The problem with paradigms: Bateman's worldview as a case study. Integr Comp Biol 45:821-830. (Pubitemid 43098214)
10. Sutherland WJ (1985) Chance can produce sex differences in mating success and explain Batean's data. Anim Behav 33:134-1352.
11. Hubbell SP, Johnson LK (1987) Environmental variance in lifetime mating success, mate choice, and sexual selection. Am Nat 130:91-112.
12. Gowaty PA, Hubbell SP (2009) Reproductive decisions under ecological constraints: It's about time. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(Suppl 1):10017-10024.
13. Marshall TC, Slate J, Kruuk LE, Pemberton JM (1998) Statistical confidence for likelihood- based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol Ecol 7:639-655. (Pubitemid 28235973)
14. Weinberg W (1908) Über den Nachweis der Vererbung beim Menschen [On proof of inheritance in humans]. Jahreshefte des Vereins für vaterländische Naturkunde in Württemberg 64:368-382.
15. Hardy GH (1908) Mendelian proportions in a mixed population. Science 28:49-50.
16. Knight J (2002) Sexual stereotypes. Nature 415:254-256.