Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 143–148 | Cite as

Mating behavior in the black hamlet — gamete trading or egg trading?

  • Eric A. Fischer


The black hamlet (Hypoplectrus nigricans, Serranidae) is a simultaneous hermaphrodite, like many other serranines. It has external fertilization and planktonic eggs and engages in a kind of reciprocal spawning consisting of three components: (1) The clutch is divided into sequentially spawned parcels. (2) Partners regularly alternate release of parcels in a spawning bout. (3) Courtship is associated with the female spawning role. Two hypotheses have been proposed to account for this pattern. The egg trading hypothesis states that the pattern results from competition for fertilizations and assumes that reproductive success (RS) as a male is limited by access to eggs and that female RS is not limited by access to sperm. The gamete trading hypothesis states that the pattern results from eggs being at substantial risk of not being fertilized — i.e. female RS is limited by access to sperm. An analysis was performed of data from the black hamlet and three other serranines to determine whether significant sperm limitation occurs. The evidence fails to support the hypothesis that access to sperm limits female RS. Unspawned eggs were not found in fish collected outside the spawning period, but fish without eggs always had milt (sperm). The percentage of eggs fertilized did not decrease over the course of a spawning bout. There was also a slight positive correlation between the number of eggs released in a spawning and the percentage that were fertilized, and serranines that divide the clutch into parcels do not tend to have higher fecundities than those that do not. The gamete trading hypothesis can therefore be rejected for H. nigricans.


Coral reef fishes Courtship Hermaphroditism Mating systems Reciprocity Reproduction Sex allocation Serranidae Spawning Sperm limitation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Bateman, A.J. 1948. Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2: 349–368.Google Scholar
  2. Blaxter, J.H.S. 1974. The early life history of fish. Springer-Verlag, New York. 765 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Charnov, E.L. 1979. Simultaneous hermaphroditism and sexual selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 76: 2480–2484.Google Scholar
  4. Fischer, E.A. 1980a. The relationship between mating system and simultaneous hermaphroditism in the coral reef fish, Hypoplectrus nigricans (Serranidae). Anim. Behav. 28: 620–633.Google Scholar
  5. Fischer, E.A. 1980b .Speciation in the hamlets (Hypoplectrus: Serranidae) — a continuing enigma. Copeia 1980: 649–659.Google Scholar
  6. Fischer, E.A. 1981. Sexual allocation in a simultaneously hermaphroditic coral reef fish. Amer. Nat. 117: 64–82.Google Scholar
  7. Fischer, E.A. 1984. Egg trading in the chalk bass, Serranus tortugarum, a simultaneous hermaphrodite. Z. Tierpsychol. 66: 143–151.Google Scholar
  8. Fischer, E.A. 1986. Mating systems of simultaneously hermaphroditic serranid fishes. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Indo-Pacific Fishes (in press).Google Scholar
  9. Gosline, W.A. 1966. The limits of the fish family Serranidae, with notes on other lower percoids. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 33: 91–112.Google Scholar
  10. Graves, J.E. & R.H. Rosenblatt. 1980. Genetic relationships of the color morphs of the serranid fish Hypoplectrus unicolor. Evolution 34: 240–245.Google Scholar
  11. Leonard, J.L. & K. Lukowiak. 1984. Male-female conflict in a simultaneous hermaphrodite resolved by sperm trading. Amer. Nat. 124: 282–286.Google Scholar
  12. Longley, R.D. & A.J. Longley. 1982. Hermissenda: agonistic behavior or mating behavior. Veliger 24: 230–231.Google Scholar
  13. Nakatzuru, K. & D.L. Kramer. 1982. Is sperm cheap? Limited male fertility and female choice in the lemon tetra (Pisces, Characidae). Science 216: 753–755.Google Scholar
  14. Sella, G. 1985. Reciprocal egg trading and brood care in a hermaphroditic polychaete worm. Anim. Behav. 33: 938–944.Google Scholar
  15. Sokal, R.R. & F.J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco. 776 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Trivers, R.L. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. pp. 136–179.In:B. Campbell (ed.) Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
  17. Williams, G.C. 1975. Sex and evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 200 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr W. Junk Publishers 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric A. Fischer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology NI-25University of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations