Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 475–482 | Cite as

Forceps Size Does Not Determine Fighting Success in European Earwigs

  • John D. Styrsky
  • Stephen Van Rhein
Article

Abstract

Male European earwigs (Forficula auricularia) possess substantially larger forceps than females and use these forceps to batter rivals in intrasexual contests to determine dominance. Although previous investigations have shown that male fighting and mating success increases with forceps size, it is not clear that sexual selection acts directly on forceps size per se; increased forceps size may be a correlated response to selection for some other trait. We experimentally reduced forceps length of males and paired them with unmanipulated males in staged encounters. Although apparent (postmanipulation) forceps length did not affect contest outcomes, original (premanipulation) forceps length did: males with longer original forceps won more contests. These results suggest that weapon size itself does not determine success in contests between male European earwigs. Thus, sexual selection may operate on forceps size in some other context or may act on some other trait that covaries with forceps size.

Dermaptera Forficula auricularia male–male competition sexual dimorphism fighting success 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Alexander, R. D. (1961). Aggressiveness, territoriality, and sexual behavior in field crickets (Orthoptera: Cryllidae). Behaviour 17: 130–223.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual Selection, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, L., and Bartalon, J. (1986). Behavioral correlates of male morphology in a horned beetle. Am. Nat. 127: 565–570.Google Scholar
  4. Conner, J. (1988). Field measurements of natural and sexual selection in the fungus beetle, Bolitotherus cornutus. Evolution 42: 735–749.Google Scholar
  5. Conner, J. (1989). Density-dependent sexual selection in the fungus beetle, Bolitotherus cornutus. Evolution 43: 1378–1387.Google Scholar
  6. Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Murray, London.Google Scholar
  7. Eberhard, W. G., and Gutierrez, E. E. (1991). Male dimorphism in beetes and earwigs and the question of developmental constraints. Evolution 45: 18–28.Google Scholar
  8. Giles, E. T. (1963). The comparative external morphology and affinities of the Dermaptera. Trans. R. Entomol. Soc. Lond. 115: 95–164.Google Scholar
  9. Knabke, J. J., and Grigarick, A. A. (1971). Biology of the African earwig, Euborellia cincticollis (Gerstaecker), in California and comparative notes on Euborellia annulipes (Lucas). Hilgardia 41: 157–194.Google Scholar
  10. Lamb, R. J. (1976). Polymorphisms among males of the European earwig, Forficula auricularia (Dermaptera: Forficulidae). Can. Entomol. 108: 69–75.Google Scholar
  11. Lamb, R. J., and Wellington, G. (1975). Life history and population characteristics of the European earwig, Forficula auricularia (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), at Vancouver, British Columbia. Can. Entomol. 107: 819–824.Google Scholar
  12. Media Cybernetics, L. P. (1997). Image-Pro Plus for Windows, Version 3.0, Media Cybernetics, L.P., Silver Spring, MD.Google Scholar
  13. Moore, A. J., and Wilson, P. (1993). The evolution of sexually dimorphic earwig forces: Social interactions among adults of the toothed earwig, Vostax apicedentatus. Behav. Ecol. 4: 40–48.Google Scholar
  14. Radesater, T., and Halldorsdottir, H. (1993a). Fluctuating asymmetry and forceps size in earwigs, Forficula auricularia. Anim. Behav. 45: 626–628.Google Scholar
  15. Radesater, T., and Halldorsdottir, H. (1993b). Two male types of the common earwig: Male-male competition and mating success. Ethology 95: 89–96.Google Scholar
  16. SAS Institute Inc. (1990). SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, 4th ed., SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  17. Tompkins, J. L., and Simmons, L. W. (1996). Dimorphisms and fluctuating asymmetry in the forceps of male earwigs. J. Evol. Biol. 9: 753–770.Google Scholar
  18. Tomkins, J. L., and Simmons, L. W. (1998). Female choice and manipulations of forces size and symmetry in the earwig Forficula auricularia L. Anim. Behav. 56: 347–356.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Zeh, D. W. (1987). Aggression, density, and sexual dimorphism in chernetid pseudoscorpions (Archnida: Pseudoscorpionida). Evolution 41: 1072–1087.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • John D. Styrsky
    • 1
  • Stephen Van Rhein
    • 1
  1. 1.Behavior, Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics Section, Department of Biological SciencesIllinois State UniversityNormal

Personalised recommendations