Skip to main content
PMC home page
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2002 Nov 22;269(1507):2309–2316. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2154

Sexual selection and speciation in mammals, butterflies and spiders.

Matthew J G Gage 1, Geoffrey A Parker 1, Soren Nylin 1, Christer Wiklund 1
PMCID: PMC1691163  PMID: 12495497

Abstract

Recently refined evolutionary theories propose that sexual selection and reproductive conflict could be drivers of speciation. Male and female reproductive optima invariably differ because the potential reproductive rate of males almost always exceeds that of females: females are selected to maximize mate 'quality', while males can increase fitness through mate 'quantity'. A dynamic, sexually selected conflict therefore exists in which 'competitive' males are selected to override the preference tactics evolved by 'choosy' females. The wide variation across taxa in mating systems therefore generates variance in the outcome of intrasexual conflict and the strength of sexual selection: monandry constrains reproductive heterozygosity and allows female choice to select and maintain particular (preferred) genes; polyandry promotes reproductive heterozygosity and will more likely override female choice. Two different theories predict how sexual selection might influence speciation. Traditional ideas indicate that increased sexual selection (and hence conflict) generates a greater diversity of male reproductive strategies to be counteracted by female mate preferences, thus providing elevated potentials for speciation as more evolutionary avenues of male-female interaction are created. A less intuitively obvious theory proposes that increased sexual selection and conflict constrains speciation by reducing the opportunities for female mate choice under polyandry. We use a comparative approach to test these theories by investigating whether two general measures of sexual selection and the potential for sexual conflict have influenced speciation. Sexual size dimorphism (across 480 mammalian genera, 105 butterfly genera and 148 spider genera) and degree of polyandry (measured as relative testes size in mammals (72 genera) and mating frequency in female butterflies (54 genera)) showed no associations with the variance in speciosity. Our results therefore show that speciation occurs independently of sexual selection.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (106.6 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Alipaz J. A., Wu C. I., Karr T. L. Gametic incompatibilities between races of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Apr 22;268(1469):789–795. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1420. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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 Jan 19;373(6511):241–244. doi: 10.1038/373241a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Emlen S. T., Oring L. W. Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science. 1977 Jul 15;197(4300):215–223. doi: 10.1126/science.327542. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gavrilets S., Arnqvist G., Friberg U. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc Biol Sci. 2001 Mar 7;268(1466):531–539. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Gavrilets S. Rapid evolution of reproductive barriers driven by sexual conflict. Nature. 2000 Feb 24;403(6772):886–889. doi: 10.1038/35002564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Higashi M., Takimoto G., Yamamura N. Sympatric speciation by sexual selection. Nature. 1999 Dec 2;402(6761):523–526. doi: 10.1038/990087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Holland B., Rice W. R. Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Apr 27;96(9):5083–5088. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.9.5083. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hosken D. J. Sperm competition in bats. Proc Biol Sci. 1997 Mar 22;264(1380):385–392. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Houde A. E., Endler J. A. Correlated Evolution of Female Mating Preferences and Male Color Patterns in the Guppy Poecilia reticulata. Science. 1990 Jun 15;248(4961):1405–1408. doi: 10.1126/science.248.4961.1405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Jiggins C. D., Naisbit R. E., Coe R. L., Mallet J. Reproductive isolation caused by colour pattern mimicry. Nature. 2001 May 17;411(6835):302–305. doi: 10.1038/35077075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lande R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981 Jun;78(6):3721–3725. doi: 10.1073/pnas.78.6.3721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. McMillan W. O., Jiggins C. D., Mallet J. What initiates speciation in passion-vine butterflies? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Aug 5;94(16):8628–8633. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.16.8628. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Morrow E. H., Gage M. J. The evolution of sperm length in moths. Proc Biol Sci. 2000 Feb 7;267(1440):307–313. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Novacek M. J. Mammalian phylogeny: shaking the tree. Nature. 1992 Mar 12;356(6365):121–125. doi: 10.1038/356121a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  16. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0726. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  17. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1998.0209. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  18. Parker G. A., Ball M. A., Stockley P., Gage M. J. Sperm competition games: a prospective analysis of risk assessment. Proc Biol Sci. 1997 Dec 22;264(1389):1793–1802. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Parker G. A., Partridge L. Sexual conflict and speciation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1998 Feb 28;353(1366):261–274. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1998.0208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Short R. V. The testis: the witness of the mating system, the site of mutation and the engine of desire. Acta Paediatr Suppl. 1997 Jul;422:3–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1997.tb18336.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Tregenza Tom, Wedell Nina. Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature. 2002 Jan 3;415(6867):71–73. doi: 10.1038/415071a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary data file
12495497s01.pdf (155.6KB, pdf)

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES