Skip to main content
PMC home page
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2002 Mar 29;357(1419):269–281. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2001.0930

Evolutionary transitions in parental care and live bearing in vertebrates.

John D Reynolds 1, Nicholas B Goodwin 1, Robert P Freckleton 1
PMCID: PMC1692951  PMID: 11958696

Abstract

We provide the first review of phylogenetic transitions in parental care and live bearing for a wide variety of vertebrates. This includes new analyses of both numbers of transitions and transition probabilities. These reveal numerous transitions by shorebirds and anurans toward uniparental care by either sex. Whereas most or all of the shorebird transitions were from biparental care, nearly all of the anuran transitions have been from no care, reflecting the prevalence of each form of care in basal lineages in each group. Teleost (bony) fishes are similar to anurans in displaying numerous transitions toward uniparental contributions by each sex. Whereas cichlid fishes have often evolved from biparental care to female care, other teleosts have usually switched from no care to male care. Taxa that have evolved exclusive male care without courtship-role reversal are characterized by male territoriality and low costs of care per brood. Males may therefore benefit from care through female preference of parental ability in these species. Primates show a high frequency of transitions from female care to biparental care, reflecting the prevalence of female care in basal lineages. In the numerous taxa that display live bearing by females, including teleosts, elasmobranchs, squamate reptiles and invertebrates, we find that live bearing has always evolved from a lack of care. Although the transition counts and probabilities will undoubtedly be refined as phylogenetic information and methodologies improve, the overall biases in these taxa should help to place adaptive hypotheses for the evolution of care into a stronger setting for understanding directions of change.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (273.6 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Beck CW. Mode of fertilization and parental care in anurans. Anim Behav. 1998 Feb;55(2):439–449. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0619. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Burley Nancy Tyler, Johnson Kristine. The evolution of avian parental care. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Mar 29;357(1419):241–250. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2001.0923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [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. Foighil D. O., Taylor D. J. Evolution of parental care and ovulation behavior in oysters. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2000 May;15(2):301–313. doi: 10.1006/mpev.1999.0755. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Goodwin Nicholas B., Dulvy Nicholas K., Reynolds John D. Life-history correlates of the evolution of live bearing in fishes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Mar 29;357(1419):259–267. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2001.0958. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lund R. Viviparity and intrauterine feeding in a new holocephalan fish from the lower carboniferous of montana. Science. 1980 Aug 8;209(4457):697–699. doi: 10.1126/science.209.4457.697. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Martins El. Adaptation and the comparative method. Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Jul;15(7):296–299. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(00)01880-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  9. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  10. Parker Geoff A., Royle Nick J., Hartley Ian R. Intrafamilial conflict and parental investment: a synthesis. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Mar 29;357(1419):295–307. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2001.0950. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Purvis A. A composite estimate of primate phylogeny. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1995 Jun 29;348(1326):405–421. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1995.0078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Sheldon Ben C. Relating paternity to paternal care. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Mar 29;357(1419):341–350. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2001.0931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Székely T., Reynolds J. D., Figuerola J. Sexual size dimorphism in shorebirds, gulls, and alcids: the influence of sexual and natural selection. Evolution. 2000 Aug;54(4):1404–1413. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2000.tb00572.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Tallamy DW. Sexual selection and the evolution of exclusive paternal care in arthropods. Anim Behav. 2000 Nov;60(5):559–567. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Teotónio H., Rose M. R. Variation in the reversibility of evolution. Nature. 2000 Nov 23;408(6811):463–466. doi: 10.1038/35044070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Tullberg Birgitta S., Ah-King Malin, Temrin Hans. Phylogenetic reconstruction of parental-care systems in the ancestors of birds. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Mar 29;357(1419):251–257. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2001.0932. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES