Advertisement

Journal of Ethology

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 29–39 | Cite as

Sexual coercion does not exclude luring behavior in the climbing camel-spider Oltacola chacoensis (Arachnida, Solifugae, Ammotrechidae)

  • Alfredo V. PerettiEmail author
  • Rodrigo H. Willemart
Article

Abstract

Sexual coercion in the form of forced copulation has been used as a typical example to illustrate the conflict of interests between females and males. Among arthropods, forced copulation has been reported for some groups of insects and crustaceans, but not for arachnids. In the present work, we analyse and describe the behavioral patterns of mating behavior of the climbing camel-spider, Oltacola chacoensis, relating it to relevant morphological features, In this species, the male forcefully clasps the female’s genital region with his chelicerae and locks her fourth pair of legs with his pedipalps. In some cases, the cuticle of the female’s abdomen was damaged by this cheliceral clasping. In contrast to other camel-spiders, the female O. chacoensis never remained motionless during mating, but continuously shook her body, opening her chelicerae notably towards the male. Despite this coercive context, males performed copulatory courtship (tapping with pedipalps) and females showed an apparent cooperative behavior (they remained still during a short period of the sperm transfer phase). These results strengthen the idea that sexual coercion (in the form of forced copulation) and luring behavior (in the form of copulatory courtship) are not two mutually-exclusive male’s strategies during a single copulation.

Keywords

Sexual coercion Forced copulation Sexual dimorphism Clasping structures Copulatory courtship Arachnids Camel-spiders 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank G.R. Smith, P. Carrera and A. Klann for useful comments on previous versions of the manuscript. We are also indebted to C. Mattoni and P. Carrera for help in collecting trips. AVP thank Emilio Maury for his help and advice for the study of the biology of camel-spiders. Financial support was provided by the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas of Argentina and the Secretaría de Ciencia y Técnica of the Universidad Nacional de Córdoba to AVP.

References

  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrade MCB (1996) Sexual selection for male sacrifice in the Australian redback spider. Science 271:70–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnqvist G (1997) The evolution of water strider mating systems: causes and consequences of intersexual conflicts of interest. In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ (eds) The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 146–163Google Scholar
  4. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (1995) Sexual conflict and arms races between the sexes: a morphological adaptation for control of mating in a female insect. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 261:123–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2002) Comparative analysis unveils antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415:787–789PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Benton TG (2001) Reproductive Biology. In: Brownell P, Polis GA (eds) Scorpion biology and research. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 278–301Google Scholar
  7. Bissaza A, Vaccari G, Pilastro A (2001) Female mate choice in a mating system dominated by male sexual coercion. Behav Ecol 12:59–64Google Scholar
  8. Bloch-Qazi MC (2003) A potential mechanism for cryptic female choice in a flour beetle. J Evol Biol 16:170–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Brookhart JO, Muma MH (1981) The pallipes species-group of Eremobates Banks (Solpugida: Arachnida) in the United States. Florida Entomol 64:283–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brownell PH, Farley RD (1974) The organization of the malleolar sensory system in the solpugid, Chanbria sp. Tissue Cell 6:471–485CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 8:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Choe JC, Crespi BJ (1997) The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  13. Cloudsley-Thompson JL (1961) Observations on the natural history of the ‘Camel-Spider’, Galeodes arabs C. L. Koch (Solifugae: Galeodidae) in the Sudan. Entomol Mon Mag 97:145–152Google Scholar
  14. Cloudsley-Thompson JL (1967) Reproduction in Solifugae. Entomol Mon Mag 103:144–145Google Scholar
  15. Contreras-Garduño J, Peretti AV, Córdoba-Aguilar A (2006) Evidence that mating plug is related to null female mating activity in the scorpion Vaejovis punctatus. Ethology (in press)Google Scholar
  16. Cordero C, Eberhard WG (2003) Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J Evol Biol 16:1–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Clutton-Brock TH, Parker GA (1995) Sexual coercion in animal societies. Anim Behav 49:1345–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crudgington HS, Siva-Jothy MT (2000) Genital damage, kicking and early death—the battle of the sexes takes a sinister turn in the bean weevil. Nature 407:855–856CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Eberhard WG (1991) Copulatory courtship in insects. Biol Rev 66:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eberhard WG (1994) Evidence for widespread courtship during copulation in 131 species of insects and spiders, and implications of cryptic female choice. Evolution 48:711–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  22. Eberhard WG (2001) Species-specific genitalic copulatory courtship in sepsid flies (Diptera, Sepsidae, Microsepsis) and theories of genitalic evolution. Evolution 55:93–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Eberhard WG (2002a) Female resistance or screening? Male force vs. selective female cooperation in intromission in sepsid flies and other insects. Rev Biol Trop 50:485–505Google Scholar
  24. Eberhard WG (2002b) Physical restraint or stimulation? The function(s) of the modified front legs of male Archisepsis diversiformis (Diptera, Sepsidae). J Ins Behav 15:831–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eberhard WG (2004) Males that are unable to harass females: massive failure to confirm male–female conflict predictions for genitalic evolution in insects and spiders. Biol Rev 79:121–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Edvardsson M, Arnqvist G (2000) Copulatory courtship and cryptic female choice in red flour beetles. Proc R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 267:559–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Edgar AL (1971) Studies on the biology and ecology of Michigan Phalangida (Opiliones). Misc Publ Mus Zool Univ Michigan 144:1–64Google Scholar
  28. Elgar MA (1992) Sexual cannibalism in spiders and other invertebrates. In: Elgar MA, Crespi BJ (eds) Cannibalism, ecology and evolution among diverse taxa. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 128–155Google Scholar
  29. Elgar MA (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection in spiders and other arachnids. In: Birkhead TR, M∅ller AP (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic, London, pp 307–340Google Scholar
  30. Elgar MA, Schneider JM, Herbestein ME (2000) Female control of paternity in the sexually cannibalistic spider Argiope keyserlingi. Proc R Soc Ser B Biol Sci 267:2439–2443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gaffin DD, Brownell PH (2001) Chemosensory behavior and physiology. In: Brownell PH, Polis GA (eds) Scorpion biology and research, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 184–203Google Scholar
  32. Heymons J (1902) Biologische Beobachtungen an asiatischen Solifugen. Abdhandl Preuss Akad Wiss Berlin 190:1–65Google Scholar
  33. Holland B, Rice WR (1998) Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hosken DJ, Martin OY, Born J, Huber F (2003) Sexual conflict in Sepsis cynipsea: female reluctance, fertility and mate choice. J Evol Biol 16:485–490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Johns JL, Uetz GW (2005) Love bites: evidence of coercive mating in the brush-leg wolf spider Schizocosa ocreata (Hentz). Newslet Am Arachnol Soc 72:22Google Scholar
  36. Junqua C (1966) Recherches biologique et histophysiologiques sur un solifuge saharien Othoes saharae Panouse. Mém Mus Natn Hist Nat Paris A 43:1–124Google Scholar
  37. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J (2003) The evolution of male choice and mating biases. Proc R Soc Ser B Biol Sci 270:653–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moore AJ, Gowaty PA, Moore PJ (2003) Females avoid manipulative males and live longer. J Evol Biol 16:523–530CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Mora G (1990) Paternal care in a neotropical harvestman, Zygopachylus albomarginis (Arachnida, Opiliones: Gonyleptidae). Anim Behav 39:582–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Muma MH (1966a) Mating behavior in the solpugid genus Eremobates Banks. Anim Behav 14:346–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Muma MH (1966b) The life cycle of Eremobates durangonus (Arachnida: Solpugida). Florida Entomol 49:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Muma MH, Muma KE (1988) The arachnid order Solpugida in the United States (supplement 2, a biological review). Monography. Southwest Offset, New Mexico, pp 35Google Scholar
  43. Okada Y, Hasegawa E (2005) Size-dependent precopulatory behavior as mate-securing tactic in the Japanese stag beetle, Prosopocoilus inclinatus (Coleoptera; Lucanidae). J Ethol 23:99–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peretti AV (1997) Evidencia de cortejo copulatorio en el orden Scorpiones (Arachnida), con un análisis en Zabius fuscus (Buthidae). Rev Soc Entomol Arg 56:21–30Google Scholar
  45. Peretti AV (2003) Spermatophores and female genitalia of some scorpions (Bothriuridae, Buthidae): genitalic copulatory courtship, coercion and other mechanisms. J Zool London 261:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peretti AV, Carrera P (2005) Female control of mating sequences in the mountain scorpion Zabius fuscus: males do not use coercion as a reponse to unreceptive females. Anim Behav 69:453–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Peretti AV, Acosta LE, Benton TG (1999) Sexual cannibalism in scorpions: fact or fiction? Biol J Linn Soc 68:485–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peretti AV, Eberhard WG, Briceño RD (2006) Copulatory dialogue: female spiders sing during copulation to influence male genitalic movements. Anim Behav (in press)Google Scholar
  49. Persons MH, Uetz GW (2005) Sexual cannibalism and mate choice decisions in wolf spiders: influence of male size and secondary sexual characteristics. Anim Behav 69:83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Polis GA, Sissom WD (1990). Life history. In: Polis GA (ed) The biology of scorpions. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 161–223Google Scholar
  51. Pizzari T, Snook RR (2003) Sexual conflict and sexual selection: chasing away paradigm shifts. Evolution 57:1223–1236PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Punzo F (1998) The biology of camel-spiders (Arachnida, Solifugae). Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  53. Sakaluk SK, Bangert PJ, Eggert AK, Gack C, Swanson LV (1995) The gin trap as a device facilitating coercive mating in sagebrush crickets. Proc R Soc Ser B Biol Sci 261:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smuts BB, Smuts RW (1993) Male aggression and sexual coercion of females in nonhuman primates and other mammals: evidence and theoretical implications. Adv Stud Behav 22:1–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Snow LSE, Andrade MCB (2005) Multiple sperm storage organs facilitate female control of paternity. Proc R Soc Ser B Biol Sci 271:1139–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tallamy DW, Powell BE, McClafferty JA (2002a) Male traits under cryptic female choice in the spotted cucumber beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Behav Ecol 13:511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tallamy DW, Darlington MB, Pesek JD, Powell BE (2002b) Copulatory courtship signals male genetic quality in cucumber beetles. Proc R Soc Ser B Biol Sci 270:77–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tallarovic SK, Melville JM, Brownell PH (2000) Courtship and mating in the giant hairy desert scorpion, Hadrurus arizonensis (Scorpionida, Iuridae). J Ins Behav 13:827–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thomas RH, Zeh DW (1984) Sperm transfer and utilization strategies in arachnids: ecological and morphological constraints. In: Smith RL (ed) Sperm competition and evolution of animal mating systems. Academic, Orlando, pp 180–221Google Scholar
  60. Thornhill R (1981) Panorpa (Mecoptera: Panorpidae) scorpionflies: systems for understanding resource-defense polygyny and alternative male reproductive efforts. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 12:355–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thornhill R, Alcock J (1983) The evolution of insect mating systems. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  62. Tietjen WJ, Rovner JS (1982) Chemical communication in lycosids and other spiders. In: Witt PN, Rovner JS (eds) Spider communication. Mechanisms and ecological significance. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, pp 249–279Google Scholar
  63. Vahed K (2002) Coercive copulation in the Alpine bushcricket Anonconotus alpinus Yersin (Tettigoniidae: Tettigoniinae: Platycleidini). Ethology 108:1065–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Watters JV (2005) Can the alternative male tactics ‘figther’and ‘sneaker’ be considered ‘coercer’ and ‘cooperator’ in coho salmon? Anim Behav 70:1055–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wharton RA (1987) Biology of the diurnal Metasolpuga picta (Kraepelin) (Solifugae, Solpugidae) compared with that of nocturnal species. J Arachnol 14:363–383Google Scholar
  66. Weygoldt P (1990) Arthropoda-Chelicerata: sperm transfer. In: Adiyodi KG, Adiyodi RG (eds) Reproductive biology of Invertebrates, vol IV, part B (fertilization, development and parental care). Oxford & I B H, New Delhi, pp 77–119Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Ethological Society and Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CONICET - Cátedra de Diversidad Animal I, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y NaturalesUniversidad Nacional de CórdobaCórdobaArgentina
  2. 2.Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de BiociênciasUniversidade de São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations