Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 58, Issue 6, pp 558–565 | Cite as

Asexuals looking for sex: conflict between species and mate-quality recognition in sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna)

  • J. M. GummEmail author
  • C. R. Gabor
Original Article


When two closely related species are sympatric the process of species recognition (identifying conspecifics) and mate-quality recognition (increased fitness benefits) can yield a conflict when heterospecifics resemble high-quality conspecifics. Conflict in species versus mate-quality recognition may serve as a possible mechanism for the persistence of unisexual, gynogenetic Amazon mollies (Poecilia formosa). Amazon mollies require sperm from closely related species (e.g., sailfin mollies, P. latipinna) to start embryogenesis but inheritance is strictly maternal. When choosing mates, male sailfin mollies from populations sympatric with Amazon mollies may rely on traits indicating species identity rather than those indicating mate quality. Conversely, males from allopatric populations may rely more on traits indicating mate quality. Previous work has found that male sailfin mollies in sympatry exhibit a significantly greater mating preference for female sailfin mollies over Amazon mollies compared to males in allopatry. In addition, male sailfin mollies prefer to associate with and produce more sperm in the presence of larger conspecific females, which are more fecund. We hypothesized that male sailfin mollies experience a conflict in species recognition and mate-quality recognition in the presence of Amazon mollies that are relatively larger than female sailfin mollies. To test this hypothesis, we paired males from sympatric and allopatric populations with a larger Amazon molly and a smaller female sailfin molly. We scored the number of mating attempts that males directed to conspecific and heterospecific females. Males in most sympatric and allopatric populations demonstrate no clear preference for conspecifics. In addition, we found some evidence for a difference in mating preference between allopatric and sympatric populations with males from allopatry showing a greater heterospecific mate preference. These results indicate a conflict between species and mate-quality recognition. In sympatry this conflict may contribute to the persistence of gynogenetic Amazon mollies.


Gynogenetic Mate choice Poecilia formosa Poecilia latipinna Species recognition 



This material is based in part upon work supported by the Texas Advanced Research (Advanced Technology/Technology Development and Transfer) Program under Grant No. 003615-0004-2001 and an N.S.F. Grant DIB- 0415808 to C. R. G. We thank the Mexican government for a collecting permit (Permit number: 200302-613-03-147) and D. King, M. Thaker, and A. Aspbury for help in collection of the fish. We also thank A. Aspbury, C. Nice, M. Itzkowitz, J. Ott, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript. All experiments comply with current laws and with the Animal Care Guidelines of Texas State University (IACUC Approval No. 39CGYe_01)


  1. Abt G, Reyer HU (1993) Mate choice and fitness in a hybrid frog: Rana esculenta females prefer Rana lessonae males over their own. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1994) Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  3. Aspbury AS, Gabor CR (2004) Differential sperm priming by male sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna): Effects of female and male size. Ethology 110:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avise JC, Trexler JC, Travis J, Nelson W (1991) Poecilia mexicana is the recent female parent of the unisexual fish P. formosa. Evolution 45:1530–1533Google Scholar
  5. Balsano JS, Randle EJ, Rasch EM, Monaco PJ (1985) Reproductive behavior and the maintenance of all-female Poecilia. Env Biol Fish 12:251–263Google Scholar
  6. Balsano JS, Rasch EM, Monaco PJ (1989) The evolutionary ecology of Poecilia formosa and its triploid associates. In: Meffe GK, Snelson FF (eds) Ecology and Evolution of Live-Bearing Fishes (Poeciliidae). Englewood Cliffs. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, pp 277–297Google Scholar
  7. Bisazza A, Marconato A, Marin G (1989) Male mate preference in the mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki. Ethology 83:335–343Google Scholar
  8. Brown WH (1953) Introduced fish species of the Guadalupe river basin. Texas J Sci :245–251Google Scholar
  9. Candolin U (2003) The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev 78:575–595PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Darnell RM, Lamb E, Abramoff P (1967) Matroclinous inheritance and clonal structure of a Mexican population of the gynogenetic fish, Poecilia formosa. Evolution 21:168–173Google Scholar
  11. Dries LA (2003) Peering through the looking glass at a sexual parasite: Are Amazon mollies red queens? Evolution 57:1387–1396PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Farr JA, Travis J (1986) Fertility advertisement by female sailfin mollies, Poecilia latipinna (Pisces, Poeciliidae). Copeia:467–472Google Scholar
  13. Farr JA, Travis J, Trexler JC (1986) Behavioral allometry and interdemic variation in sexual behaviour of the sailfin molly Poecilia latipinna (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Anim Behav 34:497–509Google Scholar
  14. Foran CM, Ryan MJ (1994) Female–female competition in a unisexual/bisexual complex of mollies. Copeia 1994:504–508Google Scholar
  15. Gabor CR (1999) Association patterns of sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna): alternative hypotheses. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:333–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gabor CR, Ryan MJ (2001) Geographical variation in reproductive character displacement in mate choice by male sailfin mollies. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1063–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hankison SJ, Morris MR (2003) Avoiding a compromise between sexual selection and species recognition: Female swordtail fish assess multiple species-specific cues. Behav Ecol 14: 282–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herdman EJE, Kelly CD, Godin J -GJ (2004) Male mate choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): Do males prefer larger females as mates? Ethology 110:97–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hubbs C (1964) Interactions between bisexual fish species and its gynogenetic sexual parasite. Bull Texas Memorial Mus 8:1–72Google Scholar
  20. Hubbs CL, Hubbs LC (1932) Apparent parthenogenesis in nature in a form of fish of hybrid origin. Science 76:628–630Google Scholar
  21. Hubbs C, Hubbs LC (1946) Experimental breeding of the Amazon molly. Aquarium J 17:4–6Google Scholar
  22. Hubbs C, Dries LA (2002) Geographic variation in interbrood interval in Poecilia. In: Lozano-Vilano L (ed) Libro Jubilar en Honor al Dr. Salvador Contreras Balderas. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo Leon, pp 35–41Google Scholar
  23. Kallman KD (1962) Gynogenesis in the teleost Mollienesia formosa (Girard), with a discussion of the detection of parthenogenesis in vertebrates by tissue transplantation. J Gen 59:7–21Google Scholar
  24. Kawecki TJ (1988) Unisexual/bisexual breeding complexes in Poeciliidae: Why do males copulate with unisexual females? Evolution 42:1018–1023Google Scholar
  25. Liley NR (1966) Ethological isolating mechanisms in four sympatric species of poeciliid fishes. Behav Supplement 13:1–197Google Scholar
  26. Moore WS, McKay FE (1971) Coexistence in unisexual–bisexual species complexes of Poeciliopsis (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Ecology 52:791–799Google Scholar
  27. Pfennig KS (1998) The evolution of mate choice and the potential for conflict between species and mate-quality recognition. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1743–1748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pfennig KS (2000) Female spadefoot toads compromise on mate quality to ensure conspecific matings. Behav Ecol 11:220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ptacek MB, Travis J (1997) Mate choice in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna. Evolution 51:1217–1231Google Scholar
  30. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1993) Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47:647–657Google Scholar
  31. Ryan MJ, Dries LA, Batra P, Hillis DM (1996) Male mate preferences in a gynogenetic species complex of Amazon mollies. Anim Behav 52:1225–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ryan MJ, Rand W, Hurd PL, Phelps SM, Rand AS (2003) Generalization in response to mate recognition signals. Am Nat 161:380–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Schartl M, Wilde B, Schlupp I, Parzefall J (1995) Evolutionary origin of a parthenoform, the Amazon molly, P. formosa, on the basis of a molecular genealogy. Evolution 49:827–835Google Scholar
  34. Schlupp I, Parzefall J, Schartl M (1991) Male mate choice in mixed bisexual/unisexual breeding complexes of Poecilia (Teleostei: Poeciliidae). Ethology 88:215–222Google Scholar
  35. Schlupp I, Marler C, Ryan MJ (1994) Benefit to male sailfin mollies of mating with heterospecific females. Science 263:373–374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Schlupp I, Parzefall J, Schartl M (2002) Biogeography of the Amazon molly, Poecilia formosa. J Biogeo 29:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry, 3rd edn. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  38. Snelson FF Jr, Wetherington JD, Large HL (1986) The relationship between interbrood interval and yolk loading in a generalized poeciliid fish, Poecilia latipinna. Copeia 1986:295–304Google Scholar
  39. Travis J, Woodward BD (1989) Social context and courtship flexibility in male sailfin mollies, Poecilia latipinna (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Anim Behav 38:1001–1011Google Scholar
  40. Trexler JC, Tempe RC, Travis J (1994) Size-selective predation of sailfin mollies by two species of heron. Oikos 69:250–258Google Scholar
  41. Trexler JC, Travis J, Dinep A (1997) Variation among populations of the sailfin molly in the rate of concurrent multiple paternity and its implications for mating-system evolution. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 40:297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wedell N, Gage MJG, Parker GA (2002) Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females. Trends Ecol Evol 17:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Woodhead AD, Armstrong N (1985) Aspects of the mating behaviour of male mollies (Poecilia spp). J Fish Biol. 27:593–601Google Scholar
  44. Wymann MN, Whiting MJ (2003) Male mate preference for large size overrides species recognition in allopatric flat lizards (Platysaurus broadleyi). Acta Ethol 6:19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyTexas State University at San MarcosSan Marcos
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesLehigh UniversityBethlehem

Personalised recommendations