11 research outputs found
The Evolution of a Female Genital Trait Widely Distributed in the Lepidoptera: Comparative Evidence for an Effect of Sexual Coevolution
Sexual coevolution is considered responsible for the evolution of many male genital traits, but its effect on female genital morphology is poorly understood. In many lepidopterans, females become temporarily unreceptive after mating and the length of this refractory period is inversely related to the amount of spermatophore remaining in their genital tracts. Sperm competition can select for males that delay female remating by transferring spermatophores with thick spermatophore envelopes that take more time to be broken. These envelopes could select for signa, sclerotized sharp structures located within the female genital tract, that are used for breaking spermatophores. Thus, this hypothesis predicts that thick spermatophore envelopes and signa evolve in polyandrous species, and that these adaptations are lost when monandry evolves subsequently. Here we test the expected associations between female mating pattern and presence/absence of signa, and review the scant information available on the thickness of spermatophore envelopes.We made a literature review and found information on female mating pattern (monandry/polyandry), presence/absence of signa and phylogenetic position for 37 taxa. We built a phylogenetic supertree for these taxa, mapped both traits on it, and tested for the predicted association by using Pagel's test for correlated evolution. We found that, as predicted by our hypothesis, monandry evolved eight times and in five of them signa were lost; preliminary evidence suggests that at least in two of the three exceptions males imposed monandry on females by means of specially thick spermatophore envelopes. Previously published data on six genera of Papilionidae is in agreement with the predicted associations between mating pattern and the characteristics of spermatophore envelopes and signa.Our results support the hypothesis that signa are a product of sexually antagonistic coevolution with spermatophore envelopes
First record of Hyssopus pallidus (Askew, 1964) for Switzerland (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae)
Volume: 111Start Page: 671End Page: 67
Predicting variation in sperm precedence
Sperm competition theory predicts that males are adapted for success in sperm competition by the production of large numbers of sperm. This is supported by both inter- and intraspecific studies showing that males mating under high sperm competition risk increase investment in sperm production. Such an increase in sperm production is an advantage if sperm mix randomly or if sperm displacement occurs. When two males mate with the same female, the measurement of the proportion of eggs fertilized by the second male to mate (termed P(2)) has been used to help elucidate sperm competition mechanisms. P(2) is usually quoted as a mean value, with little attention being paid to its variance, although P(2) estimates are notoriously variable. By predicting an expected variance for P(2), additional information on sperm competition mechanisms may be obtained. Here we present a technique for analysing the variance in P(2) when a given mechanism of P(2) is assumed. We apply this technique to P(2) data collected from Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera, Pyralidae), assuming a 'fair raffle' mechanism of sperm competition. We compare observed distributions of P(2) with theoretical distributions generated assuming random mixing of two ejaculates drawn randomly from a population of known mean and variance in sperm numbers. Ejaculates of known size were obtained by counting the number of sperm ejaculated by males mating for the first (large ejaculate) or second (small ejaculate) time. Females either received two small or one small and one large ejaculate, and the distribution of P(2) (estimated using the sterile male technique) was compared with our theoretical predictions. The observed variance in P(2) was greater than our model prediction, thus we conclude that sperm from P. interpunctella do not mix randomly before fertilization. <br