Evolutionary Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 993–1015 | Cite as

Diverse reproductive barriers in hybridising crickets suggests extensive variation in the evolution and maintenance of isolation

  • Thor Veen
  • Joseph Faulks
  • Frances Tyler
  • Jodie Lloyd
  • Tom Tregenza
Original Paper

Abstract

Reproductive barriers reduce gene flow between populations and maintain species identities. A diversity of barriers exist, acting before, during and after mating. To understand speciation and coexistence, these barriers need to be quantified and their potential interactions revealed. We use the hybridising field crickets Gryllus bimaculatus and G. campestris as a model to understand the full compliment and relative strength of reproductive barriers. We find that males of both species prefer conspecific females, but the effect is probably too weak to represent a barrier. In contrast, prezygotic barriers caused by females being more attracted to conspecific male song and preferentially mounting and mating with conspecifics are strong and asymmetric. Postzygotic barriers vary in direction; reductions in fecundity and egg viability create selection against hybridisation, but hybrids live longer than pure-bred individuals. Hybrid females show a strong preference for G. bimaculatus songs, which together with a complete lack of hybridisation by G. campestris females, suggests that asymmetric gene flow is likely. For comparison, we review reproductive barriers that have been identified between other Gryllids and conclude that multiple barriers are common. Different species pairs are separated by qualitatively different combinations of barriers, suggesting that reproductive isolation and even the process of speciation itself may vary widely even within closely related groups.

Keywords

Gryllus bimaculatus Gryllus campestris Gryllidae Reinforcement Sexual selection Mate choice Speciation 

Supplementary material

10682_2012_9610_MOESM1_ESM.docx (165 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 165 kb)

References

  1. Adamo SA, Hoy RR (1994) Mating-behavior of the field cricket Gryllus bimaculatus and its dependence on social and environmental cues. Anim Behav 47:857–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold ML (1992) Natural hybridization as an evolutionary process. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:237–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold ML, Hodges SA (1995) Are natural hybrids fit or unfit relative to their parents? Trends Ecol Evol 10:67–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barlow GW, Siri P (1997) Does sexual selection account for the conspicuous head dimorphism in the Midas cichlid? Anim Behav 53:573–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birge LM, Hughes AL, Marshall JL, Howard DJ (2010) Mating behavior differences and the cost of mating in Allonemobius fasciatus and A. socius. J Insect Behav 23:268–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boughman JW (2002) How sensory drive can promote speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 17:571–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bridle JR, Saldamando CI, Koning W, Butlin RK (2006) Assortative preferences and discrimination by females against hybrid male song in the grasshoppers Chorthippus brunneus and Chorthippus jacobsi (Orthoptera: Acridiae). J Evol Biol 19:1248–1256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cade WH, Tyshenko MG (1990) Geographic variation in hybrid fertility in the field crickets Gryllus integer, G. rubens and Gryllus sp. Can J Zool 68:2697–2700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cousin G (1933) Sur l’hybridation de deux espèces de Gryllidae. (Acheta campestris et bimaculata). Bull Soc Ent Fr 12:189–193Google Scholar
  10. Coyne JA, Orr HA (1989) Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution 43:362–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coyne JA, Orr HA (1997) Patterns of speciation in Drosophila revisited. Evolution 51:295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coyne JA, Orr HA (2004) Speciation. Sinauer Associates Inc, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Desutter-Grandcolas L, Robillard T (2003) Phylogeny and the evolution of calling songs in Gryllus (Insecta, Orthoptera, Gryllidae). Zool Scr 32:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dobzhansky T (1937) Genetic nature of species differences. Am Nat 71:404–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doebeli M, Ispolatov I (2010) Complexity and diversity. Science 328:494–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doherty JA (1991) Song recognition and localization in the phonotaxis behavior of the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (Orthoptera, Gryllidae). J Comp Physiol A 168:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Doherty JA, Storz MM (1992) Calling song and selective phonotaxis in the field crickets, Gryllus firmus and G. pennsylvanicus (Orthoptera, Gryllidae). J Insect Behav 5:555–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Endler JA (1992) Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. Am Nat 139:S125–S153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fitzpatrick MJ, Gray DA (2001) Divergence between the courtship songs of the field crickets Gryllus texensis and Gryllus rubens (Orthoptera, Gryllidae). Ethology 107:1075–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerhardt HC (1991) Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim Behav 42:615–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giraudoux P (2008) Pgirmess: data analysis in ecology. R package version 1.3.7. http://perso.orange.fr/giraudoux/SiteGiraudoux.html
  23. Gorochov AV, Llorente V (2001) Estudio taxonómico preliminary de los grylloidea de España (Insecta, Orthoptera). Graellsia 57:95–139Google Scholar
  24. Gray DA (2005) Does courtship behavior contribute to species-level reproductive isolation in field crickets? Behav Ecol 16:201–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gray DA (2011) Speciation, divergence, and the origin of Gryllus rubens: behavior, morphology, and molecules. Insects 2:195–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gray DA, Cade WH (2000) Sexual selection and speciation in field crickets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:14449–14454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gregory PG, Howard DJ (1993) Laboratory hybridization studies of Allonemobius fasciatus and A. socius (Orthoptera, Gryllidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 86:694–701Google Scholar
  28. Gregory PG, Howard DJ (1994) A postinsemination barrier to fertilization isolates 2 closely related ground crickets. Evolution 48:705–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hankison SJ, Morris MR (2002) Sexual selection and species recognition in the pygmy swordtail, Xiphophorus pygmaeus: conflicting preferences. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:140–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harrison RG (1983) Barriers to gene exchange between closely related cricket species. 1. Laboratory hybridization studies. Evolution 37:245–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harrison RG (1985) Barriers to gene exchange between closely related cricket species. 2. Life-cycle variation and temporal isolation. Evolution 39:244–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harrison RG, Arnold J (1982) A narrow hybrid zone between closely related cricket species. Evolution 36:535–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harrison RG, Bogdanowicz SM (1997) Patterns of variation and linkage disequilibrium in a field cricket hybrid zone. Evolution 51:493–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hedwig B, Poulet JEA (2005) Mechanisms underlying phonotactic steering in the cricket Gryllus bimaculatus revealed with a fast trackball system. J Exp Biol 208:915–927PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hennig RM, Weber T (1997) Filtering of temporal parameters of the calling song by cricket females of two closely related species: a behavioral analysis. J Comp Physiol A 180:621–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Higgie M, Blows MW (2007) Are traits that experience reinforcement also under sexual selection? Am Nat 170:409–420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Higgie M, Blows MW (2008) The evolution of reproductive character displacement conflicts with how sexual selection operates within a species. Evolution 62:1192–1203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hill KG, Loftus-Hills JJ, Gartside DF (1972) Premating isolation between the Australian field crickets Teleogryllus commodus and T. oceanicus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Aust J Zool 20:153–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hine E, Lachish S, Higgie M, Blows MW (2002) Positive genetic correlation between female preference and offspring fitness. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 269:2215–2219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Honda-Sumi E (2005) Difference in calling song of three field crickets of the genus Teleogryllus: the role in premating isolation. Anim Behav 69:881–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Howard DJ (1986) A zone of overlap and hybridization between two ground cricket species. Evolution 40:34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Howard DJ (1999) Conspecific sperm and pollen precedence and speciation. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:109–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Howard DJ, Gregory PG (1993) Post-insemination signaling systems and reinforcement. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 340:231–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Howard DJ, Waring GL (1991) Topographic diversity, zone width, and the strength of reproductive isolation in a zone of overlap and hybridization. Evolution 45:1120–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Howard DJ, Waring GL, Tibbets CA, Gregory PG (1993) Survival of hybrids in a mosaic hybrid zone. Evolution 47:789–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Howard DJ, Gregory PG, Chu JM, Cain ML (1998) Conspecific sperm precedence is an effective barrier to hybridization between closely related species. Evolution 52:511–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hoy RR, Paul RC (1973) Genetic-control of song specificity in crickets. Science 180:82–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hoy RR, Hahn J, Paul RC (1977) Hybrid cricket auditory behavior—evidence for genetic coupling in animal communication. Science 195:82–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Huang Y, Ortí G, Sutherlin M, Duhachek A, Zera A (2000) Phylogenetic relationships of the North American field crickets inferred from mitochondrial DNA data. Molec Phylog Evol 17:48–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Izzo AS, Gray DA (2004) Cricket song in sympatry: species specificity of song without reproductive character displacement in Gryllus rubens. Ann Entomol Soc Am 97:831–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Izzo AS, Gray DA (2011) Heterospecific courtship and sequential mate choice in sister species of field crickets. Anim Behav 81:259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jang Y, Gerhardt HC (2006a) Divergence in female calling song discrimination between sympatric and allopatric populations of the southern wood cricket Gryllus fultoni (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 60:150–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jang Y, Gerhardt HC (2006b) Divergence in the calling songs between sympatric and allopatric populations of the southern wood cricket Gryllus fultoni (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). J Evol Biol 19:459–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Jang Y, Gerhardt HC (2007) Temperature effects on the temporal properties of calling songs in the crickets Gryllus fultoni and G. vernalis: Implications for reproductive isolation in sympatric populations. J Insect Behav 20:33–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Jang Y, Won YJ, Choe JC (2009) Convergent and divergent patterns of morphological differentiation provide more evidence for reproductive character displacement in a wood cricket Gryllus fultoni (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). BMC Evol Biol 9:11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kaneshiro KY (1976) Ethological isolation and phylogeny in the Planitibia subgroup of Hawaiian Drosophila. Evolution 30:740–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Larson EL, Hume GL, Andrés JA, Harrison RG (2012) Post-mating prezygotic barriers to gene exchange between hybridizing field crickets. J Evol Biol 25:174–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lemmon EM (2009) Diversification of conspecific signals in sympatry: geographic overlap drives multidimensional reproductive character displacement in frogs. Evolution 63:1155–1170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lemmon EM, Lemmon AR (2010) Reinforcement in chorus frogs: lifetime fitness estimates including intrinsic natural selection and sexual selection against hybrids. Evolution 64:1748–1761PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Leonard AS, Hedrick AV (2009) Single versus multiple cues in mate discrimination by males and females. Anim Behav 77:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lim H-C (1970) Further cytological studies of Antipodean Teleogryllus species and their hybrids (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Can J Zool 48:523–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Marie Curie SPECIATION Network (2012) What do we need to know about speciation? Trends Ecol Evol 27:27–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Maroja LS, Andrés JA, Harrison RG (2009a) Genealogical discordance and patterns of introgression and selection across a cricket hybrid zone. Evolution 63:2999–3015PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Maroja LS, Andrés JA, Walters JR, Harrison RG (2009b) Multiple barriers to gene exchange in a field cricket hybrid zone. Biol J Linnean Soc 97:390–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Marshall JL (2004) The Allonemobius-Wolbachia host-endosymbiont system: evidence for rapid speciation and against reproductive isolation driven by cytoplasmic incompatibility. Evolution 58:2409–2425PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Marshall JL (2007) Rapid evolution of spermathecal duct length in the Allonemobius socius complex of crickets: species, population and Wolbachia effects. PLoS ONE 2:1–7Google Scholar
  67. Mendelson TC, Shaw KL (2002) Genetic and behavioral components of the cryptic species boundary between Laupala cerasina and L. kohalensis (Orthoptera : Gryllidae). Genetica 116:301–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mendelson TC, Shaw KL (2005) Sexual behaviour: rapid speciation in an arthropod. Nature 433:375–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mendelson TC, Shaw KL (2012) The (mis)concept of species recognition. Trends Ecol Evol 27:241–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mullen SP, Mendelson TC, Schal C, Shaw KL (2007) Rapid evolution of cuticular hydrocarbons in a species radiation of acoustically diverse Hawaiian crickets (Gryllidae : Trigonidiinae : Laupala). Evolution 61:223–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Naisbit RE, Jiggins CD, Mallet J (2001) Disruptive sexual selection against hybrids contributes to speciation between Heliconius cydno and Heliconius melpomene. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 268:1849–1854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Nosil P, Vines TH, Funk DJ (2005) Perspective: reproductive isolation caused by natural selection against immigrants from divergent habitats. Evolution 59:705–719PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Ohmachi F, Masaki S (1964) Interspecific crossing and development of hybrids between the Japanese species of Teleogryllus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Evolution 18:405–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Orr HA (1995) The population genetics of speciation—the evolution of hybrid incompatibilities. Genetics 139:1805–1813PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Pardo JE, Gómez R, del Cerro A (1993) Orthopteroidea de los sistemas montañosos de Castilla-La Mancha (España). II Ensifera. Zoologica Baetica 4:113–148Google Scholar
  76. Pfennig KS (2000) Female spadefoot toads compromise on mate quality to ensure conspecific matings. Behav Ecol 11:220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pfenning KS (1998) The evolution of mate choice and the potential for conflict beween species recognition and mate-quality recognition. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 265:1743–1748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Phelps SM, Rand AS, Ryan MJ (2006) A cognitive framework for mate choice and species recognition. Am Nat 167:28–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pollack GS (1982) Sexual differences in cricket calling song recognition. J Comp Physiol A 146:217–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Popov AV, Shuvalov VF (1977) Phonotactic behavior of crickets. J Comp Physiol A 119:111–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Proulx SR, Servedio MR (2009) Dissecting selection on female mating preferences during secondary contact. Evolution 63:2031–2046PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Pryke SR, Andersson S (2008) Female preferences for long tails constrained by species recognition in short-tailed red bishops. Behav Ecol 19:1116–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  84. Ramsey J, Bradshaw HD, Schemske DW (2003) Components of reproductive isolation between the monkeyflowers Mimulus lewisii and M. cardinalis (Phrymaceae). Evolution 57:1520–1534PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Ritchie MG (2007) Sexual selection and speciation. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:79–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rodríguez-Muñoz R, Bretman A, Slate J, Walling CA, Tregenza T (2010) Natural and sexual selection in a wild insect population. Science 328:1269–1272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Rodríguez-Muñoz R, Bretman A, Tregenza T (2011) Guarding males protect females from predation in a wild insect. Curr Biol 21:1716–1719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ross CL, Harrison RG (2002) A fine-scale spatial analysis of the mosaic hybrid zone between Gryllus firmus and Gryllus pennsylvanicus. Evolution 56:2296–2312PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Ross CL, Benedix JH, Garcia C, Lambeth K, Perry R, Selwyn V, Howard DJ (2008) Scale-independent criteria and scale-dependent agents determining the structure of a ground cricket mosaic hybrid zone (Allonemobius sociusAllonemobius fasciatus). Biol J Linnean Soc 94:777–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1993) Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47:647–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Sætre G-P, Sæther SA (2010) Ecology and genetics of speciation in Ficedula flycatchers. Mol Ecol 19:1091–1106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Sánchez-Guillén RA, Wullenreuther M, Rivera AC (2012) Strong asymmetry in the relative strengths of prezygotic and postzygotic barriers between two damselfly sister species. Evolution 66:690–707PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Schluter D (2001) Ecology and the origin of species. Trends Ecol Evol 16:372–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Servedio MR (2004) The evolution of premating isolation: local adaptation and natural and sexual selection against hybrids. Evolution 58:913–924PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Servedio MR, Noor MAF (2003) The role of reinforcement in speciation: theory and data. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:339–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Shaw KL (2000) Interspecific genetics of mate recognition: inheritance of female acoustic preference in Hawaiian crickets. Evolution 54:1303–1312PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Simmons LW (1986) Female choice in the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer). Anim Behav 34:1463–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Simmons LW (1988a) The contribution of multiple mating and spermatophore consumption to the lifetime reproductive success of female field crickets (Gryllus bimaculatus). Ecol Entomol 13:57–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Simmons LW (1988b) The calling song of the field cricket, Gryllus bimaculatus (De Geer): constraints on transmission and its role in intermale competition and female choice. Anim Behav 36:380–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Smith CJ, Cade WH (1987) Relative fertility in hybridization experiments using 3 song types of the field crickets Gryllus integer and Gryllus rubens. Can J Zool 65:2390–2394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Sullivan BK (2009) Mate recognition, species boundaries and the fallacy of “species recognition”. Open J Zool 2:86–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Svedin N, Wiley C, Veen T, Gustafsson L, Qvarnström A (2008) Natural and sexual selection against hybrid flycatchers. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 275:735–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Svensson EI, Karlsson K, Friberg M, Eroukhmanoff F (2007) Gender differences in species recognition and the evolution of asymmetric sexual selection. Curr Biol 17:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Thorson J, Weber T, Huber F (1982) Auditory behavior of the cricket. II. Simplicity of calling-song recognition in Gryllus and anomalous phonotaxis at abnormal carrier frequencies. J Comp Physiol A 146:361–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Traylor T, Birand AC, Marshall JL, Howard DJ (2008) A zone of overlap and hybridization between Allonemobius socius and a new Allonemobius sp. Ann Entomol Soc Am 101:30–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Tyler F, Harrison X, Bretman A, Veen T, Rodríguez-Muñoz R, Tregenza T (in press) Multiple post-mating barriers to hybridisation in field crickets. Mol EcolGoogle Scholar
  107. Vamosi SM, Schluter D (1999) Sexual selection against hybrids between sympatric stickleback species: evidence from a field experiment. Evolution 53:874–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. van der Sluijs I, van Dooren TJM, Hofker KD, van Alphen JJM, Stelkens RB, Seehausen O (2008) Female mating preference functions predict sexual selection against hybrids between sibling species of cichlid fish. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363:2871–2877PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Veech JA, Benedix JH, Howard DJ (1996) Lack of calling song displacement between two closely related ground crickets. Evolution 50:1982–1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Veen T, Borge T, Griffith SC, Sætre G-P, Bureš S, Gustafsson L, Sheldon BC (2001) Hybridization and adaptive mate choice in flycatchers. Nature 411:45–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Veen T, Faulks J, Rodríguez-Muñoz R, Tregenza T (2011) Premating reproductive barriers between hybridising cricket species differing in their degree of polyandry. PLoS ONE 6:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Veen T, Faulks J, Tyler F, Lloyd J, Tregenza T (2012) Data from: diverse reproductive barriers in hybridising crickets suggests extensive variation in the evolution and maintenance of isolation. Data deposited in the Dryad Repository. http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.sh53j
  113. von Hörmann-Heck VS (1955) Untersuchungen über den Erbgang einiger verhaltensweisen bei Grillenbastarden (Gryllus campestris und Gryllus bimaculatus De Geer). Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 14:10–183Google Scholar
  114. Wagner WE (1998) Measuring female mating preferences. Anim Behav 55:1029–1042PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Weissing FJ, Edelaar P, van Doorn GS (2011) Adaptive speciation theory: a conceptual review. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:461–480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Wiley C, Qvarnström A, Andersson G, Borge T, Sætre G-P (2009) Postzygotic isolation over multiple generations of hybrid descendents in a natural hybrid zone: how well do single-generation estimates reflect reproductive isolation? Evolution 63:1731–1739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Wirtz P (1999) Mother species—father species: unidirectional hybridization in animals with female choice. Anim Behav 58:1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thor Veen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Joseph Faulks
    • 2
  • Frances Tyler
    • 2
  • Jodie Lloyd
    • 2
  • Tom Tregenza
    • 2
  1. 1.Biodiversity Research CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental SciencesUniversity of ExeterPenrynUK

Personalised recommendations