Genetica

, Volume 138, Issue 1, pp 5–18 | Cite as

Evolution of genitalia: theories, evidence, and new directions

Article

Abstract

Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain why male intromittent genitalia consistently tend to diverge more rapidly than other body traits of the same individuals in a wide range of animal taxa. Currently the two most popular involve sexual selection: sexually antagonistic coevolution (SAC) and cryptic female choice (CFC). A review of the most extensive attempts to discriminate between these two hypotheses indicates that SAC is not likely to have played a major role in explaining this pattern of genital evolution. Promising lines for future, more direct tests of CFC include experimental modification of male genital form and female sensory abilities, analysis of possible male–female dialogues during copulation, and direct observations of genital behavior.

Keywords

Sexual conflict Sexual selection Sexually antagonistic coevolution Cryptic female choice 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am extremely grateful to Michael Schmitt and Dominique Joly for honoring me by organizing a symposium on genital evolution. I also thank Daniel Briceño, Marie Djernaes, Rudolf Meier, Alfredo Peretti, Hojun Song, and Nick Tatarnic for access to unpublished work, Y. Kamimura and P. Schmid-Hempel for permission to quote personal communications, David Hosken, Santosh Jagadeeshan, Dominique Joly, Rafael Lucas Rodriguez, and two referees for useful comments. My research was supported financially by the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and the Universidad de Costa Rica.

References

  1. Alexander RD, Marshall DC, Cooley JR (1997) Evolutionary perspectives on insect mating. In: Choe JC, Crespi BJ (eds) The evolution of mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 4–31Google Scholar
  2. Amsel HG, Gregor F, Reisser H (eds) (1965–2000) Microlepidoptera Palaearctica. Goerg Fromme, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnqvist G (1998) Comparative evidence for the evolution of genitalia by sexual selection. Nature 393:784–786Google Scholar
  4. Arnqvist G (2004) Sexual conflict and sexual selection: lost in the chase. Evol Int J Org Evol 58:1383–1388Google Scholar
  5. Arnqvist G (2006) Sensory exploitation and sexual conflict. Philos Trans R Soc B 361:375–386. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2005.1790 Google Scholar
  6. Arnqvist G, Danielsson I (1999) Copulatory behavior, genital morphology, and male fertilization success in water striders. Evol Int J Org Evol 53:147–156. doi: 10.2307/2640927 Google Scholar
  7. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2002a) Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415:787–789PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2002b) Correlated evolution of male and female morphologies in water striders. Evol Int J Org Evol 56:936–947Google Scholar
  9. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  10. Aubertin D (1933) Revision of the genus Lucilia R.-D. (Diptera, Calliphoridae). Linn J Zool 38:389–436Google Scholar
  11. Baena ML, Eberhard WG (2007) Appearances deceive: female “resistance” behaviour in a sepsid fly is not a test of the male’s ability to hold on. Ethol Ecol Evol 19:27–50Google Scholar
  12. Battin TJ (1993) The odonate mating system, communication, and sexual selection. Boll Zool 60:353–360Google Scholar
  13. Birkhead T (1996) In it for the eggs. Nature 383:772. doi: 10.1038/382772a0 Google Scholar
  14. Briceño RD, Eberhard WG (2009) Experimental modifications of male genitalia support cryptic female choice hypothesis for genital evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (submitted)Google Scholar
  15. Briceño RD, Eberhard WG, Robinson AS (2007) Copulation behaviour of Glossina pallidipes (Diptera: Muscidae) outside and inside the female, with a discussion of genitalic evolution. Bull Entomol Res 97:471–488. doi: 10.1017/S0007485307005214 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Briceño RD, Chinea-Cano E, Wegrzynek D, Eberhard WG (in preparation) New technique opens a new field of study, genital behavior during copulationGoogle Scholar
  17. Chapman RF (1969) Insects structure and function. English University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 18:41–47. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00004-6 Google Scholar
  19. Cordero C, Eberhard WG (2003) Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J Evol Biol 16:1–6. doi: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00506.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Cordero C, Eberhard WG (2005) Interaction between sexually antagonistic selection and mate choice in the evolution of female responses to male traits. Evol Ecol 19:111–122. doi: 10.1007/s10682-004-7918-2 Google Scholar
  21. Córdoba-Aguilar A (2005) Possible coevolution of male and female genital form and function in a calopterygid damselfly. J Evol Biol 18:132–137. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00796.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Crean CS, Gilburn A (1998) Sexual selection as a side-effect of sexual conflict in the sea-weed fly, Coelopa ursina (Diptera: Coelopidae). Anim Behav 56:1405–1410. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1998.0932 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Danielsson I, Askenmo C (1999) Male genital traits and mating interval affect male fertilization success in the water strider Gerris lacustris. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:149–156. doi: 10.1007/s002650050604 Google Scholar
  24. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex, 6th edn. Modern Library, New York (Reprinted)Google Scholar
  25. Dixson AF (1987) Observations on the evolution of the genitalia and copulatory behavior in male primates. J Zool (London) 213:423–443Google Scholar
  26. Dixson AF (1998) Primate sexuality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Dodson G (2000) Behavior of the Phytalmiinae and the evolution of antlers in tephritid flies. In: Aluja M, Norrbom A (eds) Fruit flies (Tephritidae): phylogeny and evolution of behavior. CRC Press, Del Ray, pp 175–184Google Scholar
  28. Dominick RB, Ferguson DC, Franclemont JG, Hodges RW, Munroe EG (eds) (1971–1998) The moths of America North of Mexico. E. W. Classey Limited and RBD Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Eberhard WG (1985) Sexual selection and animal genitalia. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Eberhard WG (1990) Genitalic courtship in Acmaeodera impluviata (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). J Kans Entomol Soc 63:345–346Google Scholar
  31. Eberhard WG (1993) Evaluating models of sexual selection by female choice: genitalia as a test case. Am Nat 142:564–571. doi: 10.1086/285556 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Eberhard WG (1994) Evidence for widespread courtship during copulation in 131 species of insects and spiders, and implications for cryptic female choice. Evol Int J Org Evol 48:711–733. doi: 10.2307/2410481 Google Scholar
  33. Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  34. Eberhard WG (2000) Sexual behavior in the medfly, Ceratitis capitata. In: Aluja M, Norrbom A (eds) Fruit flies (Tephritidae): phylogeny and evolution of behavior. CRC Press, Del Ray, pp 457–487Google Scholar
  35. Eberhard WG (2001a) The functional morphology of species-specific clasping structures on the front legs of male Archisepsis and Palaeosepsis flies (Diptera, Sepsidae). Zool J Linn Soc 133:335–368. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2001.tb00630.x Google Scholar
  36. Eberhard WG (2001b) Species-specific genitalic copulatory courtship in sepsid flies (Diptera, Sepsidae, Microsepsis). Evol Int J Org Evol 55:93–102Google Scholar
  37. Eberhard WG (2001c) Genitalic behavior during copulation in Hybosciara gigantea (Diptera: Sciaridae) and the evolution of species-specific genitalia. J Kans Entomol Soc 74:1–9Google Scholar
  38. Eberhard WG (2002) Physical restraint or stimulation? The function(s) of the modified front legs of male Archisepsis diversiformis (Diptera, Sepsidae). J Insect Behav 15:831–850. doi: 10.1023/A:1021161915227 Google Scholar
  39. Eberhard WG (2003) Sexual behavior of male Themira minor (Diptera, Sepsidae), and movements of the male’s sternal lobes and genitalic surstyli. Can Entomol 135:569–581Google Scholar
  40. Eberhard WG (2004a) Male–female conflicts and genitalia: failure to confirm predictions in insects and spiders. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 79:121–186. doi: 10.1017/S1464793103006237 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Eberhard WG (2004b) Rapid divergent evolution of sexual morphology: comparative tests of sexually antagonistic coevolution and traditional female choice. Evol Int J Org Evol 58:1947–1970Google Scholar
  42. Eberhard WG (2005) Sexual morphology of male Sepsis cynipsea (Diptera: Sepsidae): lack of support for sexually antagonistic coevolution and lock and key hypotheses. Can Entomol 137:551–565Google Scholar
  43. Eberhard WG (2009) Genitalic evolution: theory and data. In: Leonard J, Cordoba-Aguilar A (eds) The evolution of primary sexual characters in animals. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Eberhard WG, Gelhaus J (2009) Genitalic stridulation in a male tupulid fly. Rev Biol Trop (in press)Google Scholar
  45. Eberhard WG, Huber BA (2009) Spider genitalia: precise maneouvers with a numb structure in a complex lock. In: Leonard J, Cordoba-Aguilar A (eds) The evolution of primary sexual characters in animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford (in press)Google Scholar
  46. Eberhard WG, Pereira F (1995) The process of intromission in the medfly, Ceratitis capitata (Diptera, Tephritidae). Psyche (Stuttg) 102:101–122Google Scholar
  47. Eberhard WG, Pereira F (1996) Functional morphology of male genetic surstyli in the dungflies Archisepsis diversiformis and A. ecalcarata (Diptera: Sepsidae). J Kans Entomol Soc 69:43–60Google Scholar
  48. Forbes WTM (1941) Does he stridulate? (Lepidoptera: Eupterotidae). Entomol News 52:79–82Google Scholar
  49. Forster W, Wohlfahrt TA (1952–1981) Die Schmetterlinge Mitteleuropas. Franckh’sche Velagshandlung, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  50. Ghiselin M (2009) Darwin’s view. In: Leonard J, Cordoba-Aguilar A (eds) The evolution of primary sexual characters in animals. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  51. Gillot C, Langley PA (1981) The control of receptivity and ovulation in the tsetse fly, Glossina morsitans. Physiol Entomol 6:269–281. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3032.1981.tb00271.x Google Scholar
  52. Gwynne DT, Edwards ED (1986) Ultrasound production by genital stridulation in Syntonarcha iriastis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): long distance signaling by male moths? Zool J Linn Soc 88:363–376. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.1986.tb02253.x Google Scholar
  53. Hedin M (1997) Speciational history in a diverse clade of habitat-specialized spiders (Araneae: Nesticidae: Nesticus): inferences from geographic-based sampling. Evol Int J Org Evol 51:1929–1945. doi: 10.2307/2411014 Google Scholar
  54. Holland B, Rice WR (1998) Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistence. Evol Int J Org Evol 52:1–7. doi: 10.2307/2410914 Google Scholar
  55. Holman L, Snook RR (2006) Spermicide, cryptic female choice and the evolution of sperm form and function. J Evol Biol 19:1660–1670. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01112.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Hosken DJ, Stockley P (2004) Sexual selection and genital evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 19:87–93. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2003.11.012 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Hosken DJ, Minder AM, Ward PI (2005) Male genital allometry in Scathophagidae (Diptera). Evol Ecol 19:501–515. doi: 10.1007/s10682-005-1023-z Google Scholar
  58. House CM, Simmons LW (2003) Genital morphology and fertilization success in the dung beetle Onthopahgus taurus: an example of sexually selected male genitalia. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 278:447–455. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2266 Google Scholar
  59. Huber BA, Eberhard WG (1997) Courtship, genitalia, and genital mechanics in Physocyclus globosus (Araneae, Pholcidae). Can J Zool 74:905–918. doi: 10.1139/z97-109 Google Scholar
  60. Huemer P, Karsholt O, Lyneborg L (1996) Microlepidoptera of Europe. Apollo Books, StenstrupGoogle Scholar
  61. Ingram KK, Laamanen T, Puniamoorthy N, Meier R (2008) Lack of morphological coevolution between male forelegs and female wings in Themira (Sepsidae: Diptera: Insecta). Biol J Linn Soc Lond 93:227–238Google Scholar
  62. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions M, Morley J (2003) The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:653–664. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2235 Google Scholar
  63. Leonard J, Córdoba-Aguilar A (2009) The evolution of primary sexual characters in animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford (in press)Google Scholar
  64. Lewis CT, Pollock JN (1975) Engagement of the phallosome in blowflies. J Ent (A) 49:137–147Google Scholar
  65. Liebherr JK (1992) Phylogeny and revision of the Platynus degallieri species group (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Platini). Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 214:1–115Google Scholar
  66. McAlpine DK (1988) Studies in upside-down flies (Diptera: Neurochaetidae). Part II. Biology, adaptations, and specific mating mechanisms. Proc Linn Soc N S W 110:59–82Google Scholar
  67. Merrett DJ (1989) The morphology of the phallosome and accessary gland material transfer during copulation in the blowfly, Lucilia cuprina (Insecta, Diptera). Zoomorphology 109:359–366. doi: 10.1007/BF00312276 Google Scholar
  68. Mikkola K (2008) The lock-and-key mechanisms of the internal genitalia of the Noctuidae (Lepidoptera): how are they selected for? Eur J Entomol 105:13–25Google Scholar
  69. Miller GT, Pitnick S (2003) Sperm–female coevolution in Drosophila. Science 298:1230–1233. doi: 10.1126/science.1076968 Google Scholar
  70. Moore AJ, Gowaty PA, Moore PJ (2003) Females avoid manipulative males and live longer. J Evol Biol 16:530–532Google Scholar
  71. Mühlhäuser C, Blanckenhorn W (2002) The costs of avoiding matings in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behav Ecol 13:359–365. doi: 10.1093/beheco/13.3.359 Google Scholar
  72. Orteiza N, Linder JE, Rice WR (2005) Sexy sons from remating do not recoup the direct costs of harmful interactions in the Drosophila melanogaster laboratory system. J Evol Biol 18:1315–1323. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.00923.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Otronen M (1990) Mating behavior and sperm competition in the fly, Dryomyza anilis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 26:349–356. doi: 10.1007/BF00171101 Google Scholar
  74. Parag A, Bennett NC, Faulkes CG, Bateman PW (2006) Penile morphology of African mole rats (Bathyergidae): structureal modification in relation to mode of ovulation and degree of sociality. J Zool (London) 270:323–329. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00141.x Google Scholar
  75. Parker GA (1972) Reproductive behavior of Sepsis cynipsea (L.) (Diptera: Sepsidae). I. A preliminary analysis of the reproductive strategy and its associated behaviour patterns. Behaviour 41:172–206. doi: 10.1163/156853972X00257 Google Scholar
  76. Parker GA (1979) Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Blum MS, Blum N (eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic Press, New York, pp 123–166Google Scholar
  77. Parker GA (2005) Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Philos Trans R Soc B 361:235–259. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2005.1785 Google Scholar
  78. Peretti A, Eberhard WG, Briceño RD (2006) Copulatory dialogue: female spiders sing during copulation to influence male genitalic movements. Anim Behav 72:413–421. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.01.014 Google Scholar
  79. Phelan PL (1997) Evolution of mate-signalling in moths: phylogenetic considerations and predictions from the asymmetric tracking hypothesis. In: Choe J, Crespie B (eds) Mating systems in insects and arachnids. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 240–256Google Scholar
  80. Pizarri T, Snook RR (2003) Perspective: sexual conflict and sexual selection: chasing away paradigm shifts. Evol Int J Org Evol 57:1223–1236Google Scholar
  81. Pizarri T, Snook RR (2004) Sexual conflict and sexual selection: measuring antagonistic coevolution. Evol Int J Org Evol 58:1389–1393Google Scholar
  82. Rice WR, Chippendale AK (2001) Intersexual ontogenetic conflicts. J Evol Biol 14:685–693. doi: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2001.00319.x Google Scholar
  83. Richards OW (1927) The specific characters of the British humblebees (Hymenoptera). Trans Roy Ent Soc Lond 75:233–265Google Scholar
  84. Richards OW (1978) The social wasps of the Americas. British Museum (Natural History), LondonGoogle Scholar
  85. Robertson HM, Paterson HEH (1982) Mate recognition and mechanical isolation in Enallagma damselflies (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Evol Int J Org Evol 36:243–250. doi: 10.2307/2408042 Google Scholar
  86. Robinson JV, Novak KL (1997) The relationship between mating system and penis morphology in ischnuran damselflies (Odonata: Coenagrionidae). Biol J Linn Soc Lond 60:187–200Google Scholar
  87. Robson GC, Richards OW (1936) The variation of animals in nature. Longmans, Green and Co., LondonGoogle Scholar
  88. Rodriguez V (1994) Fuentes de variación en la precedencia de espermatozoides de Chelymorpha alternans Boheman 1854 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Cassidinae). Master’s thesis, Universidad de Costa RicaGoogle Scholar
  89. Rodriguez V, Windsor DM, Eberhard WG (2004) Tortoise beetle genitalia and demonstration of a sexually selected advantage for flagellum length in Chelymorpha alternans (Chrysomelidae, Cassidini, Stolaini). In: Jolivet P, Santiago-Blay JA, Schmitt M (eds) New developments in the biology of Chrysomelidae. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, pp 739–748Google Scholar
  90. Roeder KD (1967) Nerve cells and insect behavior. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  91. Roig-Alsina A (1993) The evolution of the apoid endophallus, its phylogenetic implications, and functional significance of the genital capsule (Hymenoptera, Apoidea). Boll Zool 60:169–183Google Scholar
  92. Ronkainen K, Kaitala A, Huttenen R (2005) The effect of abdominal spines on female mating frequency and fecundity in a water strider. J Insect Behav 18:619–631. doi: 10.1007/s10905-005-7015-6 Google Scholar
  93. Rowe L, Arnqvist G (2002) Sexually antagonistic coevolution in a mating system: comparative approaches to address evolutionary processes. Evol Int J Org Evol 56:754–767Google Scholar
  94. Saunders DS, Dodd CHW (1972) Mating, insemination, and ovulation in the tsetse fly, Glossina morsitans. J Insect Physiol 18:187–198. doi: 10.1016/0022-1910(72)90119-9 Google Scholar
  95. Sauter A, Brown MJF, Baer B, Schmid-Hempel P (2001) Males of social insects can prevent queens from multiple mating. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 268:1449–1454. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1680 Google Scholar
  96. Scudder G (1971) Comparative morphology of insect genitalia. Ann Rev Ent 16:379–406. doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.16.010171.002115 Google Scholar
  97. Shapiro AM, Porter AH (1989) The lock-and-key hypothesis: evolutionary and biosystematic interpretation of insect genitalia. Ann Rev Entomol 34:231–245. doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.34.010189.001311 Google Scholar
  98. Simmons LW (2001) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  99. Stockley P, Preston BT (2004) Sperm competition and diversity in rodent copulatory behavior. J Evol Biol 17:1048–1057. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00742.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. Tuxen L (1970) A taxonomist’s glossary of genitalia of insects. S-H Service Agency, DarienGoogle Scholar
  101. Verrell PA (1992) Primate penile morphologies and social systems: further evidence for an association. Fol Primat 59:114–120. doi: 10.1159/000156648 Google Scholar
  102. Ward PI (1983) The effects of size on the mating behaviour of the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 13:75–80. doi: 10.1007/BF00295078 Google Scholar
  103. Ware A, Opell BD (1989) A test of the mechanical isolation hypothesis in two similar spider species. J Arachnol 17:149–162Google Scholar
  104. Wenninger EJ, Averill AL (2006) Influence of body and genital morphology on relative male fertilization success in oriental beetle. Behav Ecol 17:656–663. doi: 10.1093/beheco/ark013 Google Scholar
  105. Werner M, Simmons LW (2008) The evolution of male genitalia: functional integration of genital sclerites in the dung beetle Onthophagus taurus. Biol J Linn Soc Lond 93:257–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. West-Eberhard MJ (1984) Sexual selection, social communication, and species-specific signals in insects. In: Lewis T (ed) Insect communication. Academic Press, New York, pp 284–324Google Scholar
  107. Wood DM (1991) Homology and phylogenetic implications of male genitalia in Diptera. The ground plan. In: Weismann, Orszagh, and Pont A (eds) Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Dipterology. The Hague, pp 255–284Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, and Escuela de BiologíaUniversidad de Costa Rica, Ciudad UniversitariaSan PedroCosta Rica

Personalised recommendations