Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:31:11.649Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The inheritance of female mating behaviour in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

André S. Gilburn  and
Thomas H. Day
André S. Gilburn
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, University of Nottingham, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH
Thomas H. Day*
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, University of Nottingham, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH
*
* Corresponding author
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In order to understand the evolution of female mate preferences it is important to determine whether the genes for the preference and those for the preferred character are linked. It has previously been shown that female preference in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida, varies with the αβ inversion system on chromosome I. This inversion system is known to genetically determine, at least in part, the male preferred character, large size. This study was undertaken to determine whether the genes determining mate preferences, as well as those determining female receptivity, co-inherit with the inversion. In the full sibs of animals recently collected from a natural population in Sweden it is shown that high acceptance rate and strong preference for large male size both co-segregate with the α form of the inversion, and that low acceptance rate and a weak preference for large size co-segregate with the β form of the inversion. Both sets of genes appear to be located in or near the αβ inversion. The heterogeneity between crosses suggests the natural population from which the animals were collected was polymorphic for behavioural genes on the β haplotype. Crosses involving animals that had been in laboratory culture for seven generations indicated that variation in female mating behaviour had been lost. Possible reasons for the apparent instability of such behaviour are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , August 1994 , pp. 19 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

References

Andersson, M. B., (1982). Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 17, 375–393.Google Scholar
Andersson, M. B., (1986). Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40, 809–816.Google Scholar
Bakker, T. C. M., (1993). Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature 363, 255–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, G., (1978). The handicap principle in sexual selection. Evolution 32, 872–885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butlin, R. K., Read, I. L., & Day, T. H., (1982). The effects of a chromosomal inversion on adult size and male mating success in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Heredity 49, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, T. H., Dobson, T., Hillier, P. C., Parkin, D. T., & Clarke, B. C., (1982). Associations of enzymic and chromosomal polymorphisms in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Heredity 48, 35–44.Google Scholar
Day, T. H., Foster, S. P., & Engelhard, G., (1990). Mating behaviour in seaweed flies (Coelopa frigida). Journal of Insect Behavior 3, 105–120.Google Scholar
Engelhard, G., Foster, S. P., & Day, T. H., (1989). Genetic differences in mating success and female choice in seaweed flies (Coelopa frigida). Heredity 62, 123–131.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A., (1930). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gilbum, A. S., Foster, S. P., & Day, T. H., (1992). Female mating preference for large size in Coelopa frigida. Heredity 69, 209–216.Google Scholar
Gilbum, A. S., Foster, S. P., & Day, T. H., (1993). Genetic correlation between a female mating preference and the male preferred character in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Evolution (in the press).Google Scholar
Gilbum, A. S., & Day, T. H., (1994 a). Evolution of female choice in seaweed flies: Fisherian and good genes mechanisms operate in different populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 255, 159–165.Google Scholar
Gilbum, A. S., & Day, T. H. (1994 b). Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection and the αβ inversion polymorphism in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B (submitted).Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D., & Zuk, M., (1982). Heritable true fitnesses and bright birds: a role for parasites. Science 218, 384–387.Google Scholar
Heisler, I. L., (1984). Inheritance of female mating propen sities for ‘yellow’ locus genotypes in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetical Research 44, 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwasa, Y., Pomiankowski, A., & Nee, S., (1991). The evolution of costly preferences II. The ‘handicap’ principle. Evolution 45, 1431–1442.Google ScholarPubMed
Kearns, P. W. E., Tomlinson, I. P. M., Veltman, C. J., & O'Donald, P., (1992). Non-random mating in Adalia bipunctata. II. Further tests for female mating preference. Heredity 68, 385–389.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, M., (1982). Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36, 1–12.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, M., (1986). The handicap mechanism of sexual selection does not work. American Naturalist 127, 222–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkpatrick, M., & Ryan, M. J., (1991). The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350, 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande, R., (1981). Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 78, 3721–3725.Google Scholar
Majerus, M. E. N., O'Donald, P., & Weir, J., (1982). Female mating preference is genetic. Nature 350, 521–523.Google Scholar
Majerus, M. E. N., O'Donald, P., Kearns, P. W. E., & Ireland, N., (1986). Genetics and evolution of female choice. Nature 321, 164–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milinski, M., & Bakker, T. C. M., (1990). Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature 344, 330–333.Google Scholar
Møller, A. P., (1990). Effects of a haematophagous mite on the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica): a test of the Hamilton and Zuk hypothesis. Evolution 44, 771–784.Google ScholarPubMed
O'Donald, P., & Majerus, M. E. N., (1992). Non-random mating in Adalia bipunctata III. New evidence of genetic preference. Heredity 69, 521–526.Google Scholar
Pomiankowski, A., (1987). Sexual selection: The handicap principle does work — sometimes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 231, 123–145.Google Scholar
Pomiankowski, A., Iwasa, Y., & Nee, S., (1991). The evolution of costly preferences I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45, 1422–1430.Google Scholar
Ritchie, M. G., (1992). Setbacks in the search for mate preference genes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7, 328–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, G. S., & Reillo, P. R., (1994). Female choice responds to selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 255, 1–6.Google Scholar
Zahavi, A., (1975). Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53, 205–214.Google Scholar
Zouros, E., (1981). The chromosomal basis of sexual isolation in two sibling species of Drosophila: D. arizonensis and D. mojavensis. Genetics 97, 703–718.Google Scholar