Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sexual Selection: The Logical Imperative

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Current Perspectives on Sexual Selection

Part of the book series: History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences ((HPTL,volume 9))

Abstract

Modern sexual selection theory, developed from Darwin’s original intuition, is a cornerstone of evolutionary theory and represents the most parsimonious and robust explanation for a bewildering array of evolutionary patterns and diversity. Here we first outline the principles of modern sexual selection theory and discuss their heuristic value. Second, we review empirical demonstrations of the operation of sexual selection through the case study of the yellow dung fly. Finally, we propose that a sequence of evolutionary events flows inevitably from the early evolution of sexual recombination and gametes, to anisogamy and in dioecious organisms, to the unity sex ratio via Fisher’s principle. As Darwin and Bateman predicted, it was the primary sexual difference—anisogamy—that became an almost obligatory, irreversible transition favouring socio-ecological conditions that ultimately generated secondary differentiation of sexual strategies between the sexes, and typically plays a strong part in their maintenance (though sex roles can, rather rarely, be reversed). When considered within the broader context, sexual selection emerges deductively as the logical consequence of this evolutionary succession. We conclude by highlighting aspects integral to sexual selection theory that are currently the focus of on-going discussion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alonzo SH, Pizzari T (2010) Male fecundity stimulation: conflict and cooperation within and between the sexes: model analyses and coevolutionary dynamics. Am Nat 175:174–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M, Simmons LW (2006) Sexual selection and mate choice. Trends Ecol Evol 21:296–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Arak A (1988) Sexual dimorphism in body size: a model and a test. Evolution 42:820–825

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold SJ, Duvall D (1994) Animal mating systems: a synthesis based on selection theory. Am Nat 143:317–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold SJ, Wade MJ (1984) On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: theory. Evolution 38:709–719

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2005) Sexual conflict. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker RR, Parker GA (1973) The origin and evolution of sexual reproduction up to the evolution of the male-female phenomenon. Acta Biotheoretica 22:49–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball MA, Parker GA (1996) Sperm competition games: external fertilization and ‘adaptive’ infertility. J theor Biol 180:141–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman AJ (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Benítez-Villalobos F, Aguilar-Duarte C, Avila-Poveda OH (2012) Reproductive biology of Ophiocoma aethiops and O. alexandri (Echinodermata: Ophiuroidea) from Estacahuite Bay, Oaxaca, Mexico. Aquat Biol 17:119–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkhead TR, Møller AP (1998) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanckenhorn WU (2000) The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small? Q Rev Biol 75:385–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanckenhorn WU (2007) Case studies of the differential-equilibrium hypothesis of sexual size dimorphism in two dung fly species. In: Fairbairn DJ, Blanckenhorn WU, Székely T (eds) Sex, size, and gender roles: evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 106–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanckenhorn WU, Briegel U, Choffat Y, Demont M, Gautier R, Pemberton KL, Roschitzki-Voser H, Willi Y, Ward PI (2012) Temperature-mediated microhabitat choice and development time based on the pgm locus in the yellow dung fly Scathophaga stercoraria. Biol J Linn Soc 107:686–696

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgia G (1981) Mate selection in the fly Scatophaga stercoraria: female choice in a male-controlled system. Anim Behav 29:71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breder CM, Rosen DE (1966) Modes of reproduction in fishes. Natural History Press, Garden City

    Google Scholar 

  • Bretos M, Tesorieri I, Alvarez L (1983) The biology of Fissurella maxima Sowerby (Mollusca: Archaeogastropoda) in northern Chile. 2. Notes on its reproduction. Biol Bull 165:559–568

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulmer MG, Parker GA (2002) The evolution of anisogamy: a game-theoretic approach. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2381–2388

    Google Scholar 

  • Bussière LF, Demont M, Pemberton AJ, Hall MD, Ward PI (2010) The assessment of insemination success in yellow dung flies using competitive PCR. Mol Ecol Res 10:292–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnov EL (1982) The theory of sex allocation. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnov EL, Parker GA (1995) Dimensionless invariants from foraging theory’s marginal value theorem. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:1446–1450

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnov EL, Maynard Smith J, Bull JJ (1976) Why be an hermaphrodite? Nature 263:125–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiantore M, Cattaneo-Vietti R, Elia L, Guidetti M, Antonini M (2002) Reproduction and condition of the scallop Adamussium colbecki (Smith 1902), the sea-urchin Sterechinus neumayeri (Meissner 1900) and the sea-star Odontaster validus (Koehler 1911) at Terra Nova Bay (Ross Sea): different strategies related to inter-annual variations in food availability. Polar Biol 25:251–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock TH, Parker GA (1992) Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. Q Rev Biol 67:437–456

    Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock TH, Vincent ACJ (1991) Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature 351:58–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Collet J, Richardson DS, Worley K, Pizzari T (2012) Sexual selection and the differential effect of polyandry. PNAS 109:8641–8645

    Google Scholar 

  • Coma R, Ribes M, Zabala M, Gili JM (1995) Reproduction and cycle of gonadal development in the Mediterranean gorgonian Paramuricea clavata. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 117:173–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox PA, Sethian JA (1984) Search, encounter rates, and the evolution of anisogamy. PNAS 81:6078–6079

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox PA, Sethian JA (1985) Gamete motion, search and the evolution of anisogamy, oogamy, and chemotaxis. Am Nat 125:74–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtsinger JW (1986) Stay times in Scatophaga and the theory of evolutionarily stable strategies. Am Nat 128:130–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1874) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex, 2nd edn. John Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1889) The effects of cross and self fertilisation in the vegetable kingdom. Chapter XII. General results. D. Appleton and Company, New York, pp 436–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Demary KC, Lewis SM (2007) Male reproductive allocation in fireflies (Photinus spp.). Invertebr Biol 126:74–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Demont M, Buser CC, Martin OY, Bussiére LF (2011) Natural levels of polyandry: differential sperm storage and temporal changes in sperm competition intensity in wild yellow dung flies. Funct Ecol 25:1079–1090

    Google Scholar 

  • Demont M, Martin OY, Bussiére LF (2012) Wild yellow dung fly females may not select sperm based on dung pat microclimate but could nevertheless benefit from polyandry. Evol Ecol 26:715–731

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewsbury DA (2005) The Darwin—Bateman Paradigm in historical context. Integr Comp Biol 45:831–837

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixson AF (2009) Sexual selection and the origins of human mating systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dusenbery DB (2000) Selection for high gamete encounter rates explains the success of male and female mating types. J Theoretical Biol 202:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson SB (1997) Testis size variation in frogs: testing the alternatives. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 41:227–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairbairn DJ, Blanckenhorn WU, Székely T (2007) Sex, size and gender roles: evolutionary studies of sexual size dimorphism. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Felsenstein J (1974) The evolutionary advantage of recombination. Genetics 78(2):737–756. (PMC 1213231)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster WA (1967) Co-operation by male protection of ovipositing female in the Diptera. Nature 214:1035–1036

    Google Scholar 

  • Fretwell SD (1972) Populations in a seasonal environment. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Gori A, Linares C, Rossi S, Coma R, Gili J-M (2007) Spatial variability in reproductive cycle of the gorgonians Paramuricea clavata and Eunicella singularis (Anthozoa, Octocorallia) in the Western Mediterranean Sea. Mar Biol 151:1571–1584

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafen A (1987) Measuring sexual selection: why bother? In: Bradbury JW, Andersson MB (eds) Sexual selection: testing alternatives. Wiley, Chichester, pp 221–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Grange LJ, Tyler PA, Peck LS, Cornelius N (2004) Long-term inter- annual cycles of the gametogenic ecology of the Antarctic brittle star Ophionotus victoriae. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 278:141–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Grange LJ, Tyler PA, Peck LS (2007) Multi-year observations on the gametogenic ecology of the Antarctic seastar Odontaster validus. Mar Biol 153:15–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton WD (1964) Genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. J Theor Biol 7:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton WD (1967) Extraordinary sex ratios. Science 156:477–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer O (1941) Biological and ecological investigations on flies associated with pasturing cattle and their excrement. Vidensk Meddr dansk naturh Foren 105:1–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamner WM, Hamner PP, Strand SW (1994) Sun-compass migration by Aurelia aurita (Scyphozoa): population retention and reproduction in Saanich Inlet, British Columbia. Mar Biol 119:347–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartfield M, Keightley PD (2012) Current hypotheses for the evolution of sex and recombination. Integr Zool 7:192–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellriegel B, Bernasconi G (2000) Female-mediated differential sperm stor- age in a fly with complex spermathecae, Scatophaga stercoraria. Anim Behav 59:311–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellriegel B, Ward PI (1998) Complex female reproductive tract morphol- ogy: its possible use in postcopulatory female choice. J Theor Biol 190:179–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Henninger TO (1998) Aspects of the ecology and reproductive biology of the limpet, Helcion pruinosus (Gastropoda: prosobranchia). Masters thesis, Rhodes University

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosken DJ (1999) Sperm displacement in yellow dung flies: a role for females. Trends in Ecol Evol 14:251–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosken DJ (2001) Sex and death: microevolutionary trade-offs between reproductive and immune investment in dung flies. Curr Biol 11:R379–R380

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosken DJ, Ward PI (2000) Copula in yellow dung flies (Scathophaga stercoraria): investigating sperm competition models by histological observation. J Insect Physiol 46:1355–1363

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosken DJ, Ward PI (2001) Experimental evidence for testis size evolution via sperm competition. Ecol Lett 4:10–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosken DJ, Garner TWJ, Ward PI (2001) Sexual conflict selects for male and female reproductive characters. Curr Biol 11:489–493

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosken DJ, Uhía E, Ward PI (2002) The function of female accessory reproductive gland secretion and a cost to polyandry in the yellow dung fly. Physiol Entomol 27:87–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosken DJ, Garner TWJ, Tregenza T, Wedell N, Ward PI (2003) Superior sperm competitors sire higher-quality young. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1933–1938

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyer P, Roughgarden J (2008) Gametic conflict versus contact in the evolution of anisogamy. Theor Popul Biol 73:461–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs ME (1955) Studies on territorialism and sexual selection in dragonflies. Ecology 36:566–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Jann P, Blanckenhorn WU, Ward PI (2000) Temporal and microspatial variation in the intensities of natural and sexual selection in the yellow dung fly Scathophaga stercoraria. J Evol Biol 13:927–938

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennions MD, Passmore NI (1993) Sperm competition in frogs: testis size and a “sterile male’” experiment on Chiromantis xerampelina (Rhacophoridae). Biol J Linn Soc 50:211–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone RA, Keller L (2000) How males can gain by harming their mates: sexual conflict, seminal toxins, and the cost of mating. Am Nat 156:368–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones AG (2009) On the opportunity for sexual selection, the Bateman gradient and the maximum intensity of sexual selection. Evolution 63:1673–1684

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones AG, Ratterman NL (2009) Mate choice and sexual selection: What have we learned since Darwin? PNAS 106:10001–10008

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalmus H (1932). Über den Erhaltungswet den phenotypishen (morphologishen) Anisogamie und die Entstehung der ersten Geshlectsuntershiede. Biol Zent 52:716

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalmus H, Smith CAB (1960) Evolutionary origin of sexual differentiation and the sex-ratio. Nature 186:1004–1006

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly CD, Jennions MD (2011) Sexual selection and sperm quantity: meta-analyses of strategic. Biol Rev 86:863–884

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenagy GJ, Trombulak SC (1986) Size and function of mammalian testes in relation to body size. J Mammal 67:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Klug H, Heuschele J, Jennions MD, Kokko H (2010) The mismeasurement of sexual selection. J Evol Biol 23:447–462

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokko H, Jennions M (2008) Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. J Evol Biol 21:919–948

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokko H, Ots I (2006) When not to avoid inbreeding. Evolution 60:467–475

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokko H, Jennions MD, Brooks R (2006) Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:43–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokko H, Klug H, Jennions MD (2012) Unifying cornerstones of sexual selection: operational sex ratio, Bateman gradient and the scope for competitive investment. Ecol Lett 15:1340–1351

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokko H, Booksmythe I, Jennions MD (2013) Causality and sex roles: prejudice against patterns? A reply to Ah-King. Trends in Ecol Evol 28:2–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtonen J, Kokko H (2011) Two roads to two sexes: unifying gamete competition and gamete limitation in a single model of anisogamy evolution. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 65:445–459

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtonen J, Jennions MD, Kokko H (2012) The many costs of sex. Trends in Ecol Evol 27:172–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessells CM (2005) Why are males bad for females? Models for the evolution of damaging male mating behaviour. Am Nat 165:46–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessells CM, Snook RR, Hosken DJ (2009) The evolutionary origin and maintenance of sperm: selection for a small, motile gamete mating type. In: Birkhead TR, Hosken D, Pitnick S (eds) Sperm biology: an evolutionary perspective. Academic Press, London, pp 43–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitan DR (1996) Effects of gamete traits on fertilization in the sea and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Nature 382:153–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitan DR (1998) Sperm limitation, sperm competition and sexual selection in external fertilizers. In: Birkhead T, Møller A (eds) Sperm competition and sexual selection. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 173–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitan DR (2005) The distribution of male and female reproductive success in a broadcast spawning marine invertebrate. Integr Comp Integr Comp Biol 45:848–855

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitan DR, Petersen C (1995) Sperm limitation in the sea. Trends Ecol Evol 10:228–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas CH (2001) Reproduction and life history strategies of the common jellyfish, Aurelia aurita, in relation to its ambient environment. Hydrobiologia 451:229–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas CH, Lawes S (1998) Sexual reproduction of the scyphomedusa Aurelia aurita in relation to temperature and variable food supply. Mar Biol 131:629–638

    Google Scholar 

  • Marian JE (2012) A model to explain spermatophore implantation in cephalopods (Mollusca: Cephalopoda) and a discussion on its evolutionary origins and significance. Biol J Linn Soc 105:711–726

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin OY, Hosken DJ, Ward PI (2004) Post-copulatory sexual selection and female fitness in Scathophaga stercoraria. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:353–359

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Pita I, Sánchez-España AI, García FJ (2008) Gonadal growth and reproduction in the sea urchin Sphaerechinus granularis (Lamarck 1816) (Echinodermata: Echinoidea) in southern Spain. Scient Mar 72:603–611

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuda R (1976) Morphology and evolution of the insect abdomen. Pergamon, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J (1971) What use is sex? J Theor Biol 30:319–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J (1977) Parental investment: a prospective analysis. Anim Behav 25:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J, Ridpath MG (1972) Wife sharing in Tasmanian native hen, Tribonyx mortierii: A case of kin selection? Am Nat 106:447–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J (1978) The evolution of sex. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J, Price GR (1973) The logic of animal conflicts. Nature 246:15–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J, Szathmáry E (1995) The major transitions in evolution. W.H. Freeman Spektrum, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller HJ (1932) Some genetic aspects of sex. Am Nat 66(703):118–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Othman MS, Khonsue W, Kitana J, Thirakhupt K, Robson MG, Kitana N (2011) Reproductive mode of Fejervarya limnocharis (Anura: Ranidae) caught from Mae Sot, Thailand based on its gonadosomatic indices. Asian Herpetol Res 2:41–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Otronen M, Reguera P, Ward PI (1997) Sperm storage in the yellow dung fly Scathophaga stercoraria: identifying the sperm of competing males in separate female spermathecae. Ethology 103:844–854

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1970a) Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in insects. Biol Rev 45:525–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1970b) The reproductive behaviour and the nature of sexual selection in Scatophaga stercoraria L. (Diptera: Scatophagidae). V. The female’s behaviour at the oviposition site. Behaviour 37:140–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1970c) The reproductive behaviour and the nature of sexual selection in Scatophaga stercoraria L. (Diptera: Scatophagidae). II. The fertilization rate and the spatial and temporal relationships of each sex around the site of mating and oviposition. J Anim Ecol 39:205–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1970d) The reproductive behaviour and the nature of sexual selection in Scatophaga stercoraria L. (Diptera: Scatophagidae). IV. Epigamic recognition and competition between males for the possession of females. Behaviour 37:113–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1970e) The reproductive behaviour and the nature of sexual selection in Scatophaga stercoraria L. (Diptera: Scatophagidae). VII. The origin and evolution of the passive phase. Evolution 24:774–788

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1970f) Sperm competition and its evolutionary effect on copula duration in the fly Scatophaga stercoraria. J Insect Physiol 16:1301–1328

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1971) The reproductive behaviour and the nature of sexual selection in Scatophaga stercoraria L. (Diptera: Scatophagidae). VI. The adaptive significance of emigration from oviposition site during the phase of genital contact. J Anim Ecol 40:215–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1974a) The reproductive behaviour and the nature of sexual selection in Scatophaga stercoraria L. (Diptera: Scatophagidae). IX. Spatial distribution of fertilization rates and evolution of male search strategy within the reproductive area. Evolution 28:93–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1974b) Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behaviour. J Theor Biol 47:223–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1978a) Searching for mates. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 214–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1978b) Selfish genes, evolutionary games, and the adaptiveness of behaviour. Nature 274:849–855

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1978c) Selection on non-random fusion of gametes during the evolution of anisogamy. J Theor Biol 73:1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1979) Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Blum MS, Blum NA (eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic Press, New York, pp 123–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1982) Why are there so many tiny sperm? Sperm competition and the maintenance of two sexes. J Theor Biol 96:281–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1984) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating strategies. In: Smith RL (ed) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, Orlando, pp 1–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1992) The evolution of sexual size dimorphism in fish. J Fish Biol 41(Suppl. B):1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (2006) Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Phil Trans R Soc B 361:235–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (2011) The origin and maintenance of two sexes (anisogamy), and their gamete sizes by gamete competition. In: Togashi T, Cox PA (eds) The evolution of anisogamy: a fundamental phenomenon underlying sexual selection. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 17–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (2014) The sexual cascade and the rise of Darwinian sexual selection, sex roles and sexual conflict. In: Rice WR, Gavrilets S (eds) Sexual conflict, in press. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA, Ball MA (2005) Sperm competition, mating rate and the evolution of testis and ejaculate sizes: a population model. Biol Lett 1:235–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA, Birkhead TR (2013) Polyandry: the history of a revolution. Phil Trans R Soc B 368:20120335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.20102.0335. Accessed 21 Jan 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA, Lehtonen J. (2014) Gamete evolution and sperm numbers: sperm competition versus sperm limitation. Proc R Soc Lond B 281: 20140836.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA, Maynard Smith J (1987) The distribution of stay times in Scatophaga: reply to Curtsinger. Am Nat 129:621–628

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA, Maynard Smith J (1990) Optimality theory in evolutionary biology. Nature 348:27–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA, Stuart RA (1976) Animal behaviour as a strategy optimizer: evolution of resource assessment strategies and optimal emigration thresholds. Am Nat 110:1055–1076

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA, Simmons LW (1994) Evolution of phenotypic optima and copula duration in dung fies. Nature 370:53–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA, Simmons LW (2000) Optimal copula duration in yellow dungflies: ejaculatory duct dimensions and size-dependent sperm displacement. Evolution 54:924–935

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA, Pizzari T (2010) Sperm competition and ejaculate economics. Biol Rev 85:897–934

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA, Thompson EA (1980) Dung fly struggles: a test of the war of attrition. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:37–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA, Baker RR, Smith VGF (1972) The origin and evolution of gamete dimorphism and the male-female phenomenon. J theor Biol 36:529–553

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA, Simmons LW, Ward PI (1993) Optimal copula duration in dung flies—effects of frequency-dependence and female mating status. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:157–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA, Simmons LW, Stockley P, McChristie DM, Charnov EL (1999) Optimal copula duration in yellow dung flies: effects of female size and egg content. Anim Behav 57:795–805

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA, Lessells CM, Simmons LW (2013) Sperm competition games: a general model for precopulatory male-male competition. Evolution 67:95–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitcher TE, Dunn PO, Whittingham LA (2005) Sperm competition and the evolution of testes size in birds. J Evol Biol 18:557–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitnick, S. (1996) Investment in testes and the cost of making long sperm in Drosophila. Am Nat 148:57–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Pizzari T, Gardner A (2012) The sociobiology of sex: inclusive fitness consequences of inter-sexual interactions. Phil Trans Roy Soc B 367:2314–2323

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulin R, Morand S (2000) Testes size, body size and male–male competition in acanthocephalan parasites. J Zool 250:551–558

    Google Scholar 

  • Prum RO (2012) Aesthetic evolution by mate choice: Darwin’s really dangerous idea. Phil Trans R Soc B 367:2253–2265

    Google Scholar 

  • Rankin DJ (2011) Kin selection and the evolution of sexual conflict. J Evol Biol 24:71–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers DW, Greig D (2009) Experimental evolution of a sexually selected display. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 276:543–549

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa R, Costa PR, Nandarra N, Nunes ML (2005) Changes in tissue biochemical composition and energy reserves associated with sexual maturation in the ommastrephid squids Illex coindetii and Todaropsis eblanae. Biol Bull 208:100–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Roughgarden J, Oishi M, Akçay E (2006) Reproductive social behaviour: cooperative games to replace sexual selection. Science 311:965–970

    Google Scholar 

  • Saha BK, Gupta BBP (2011) Studies on annual activity cycle of gonads and breeding behavior of the endangered frog, Rana leptoglossa (Cope, 1868). Int J Sci Nat 2:683–691

    Google Scholar 

  • Schärer L, Rowe L, Arnqvist G (2012) Anisogamy, chance and the evolution of sex roles. Trends Ecol Evol 27:260–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Scudo FM (1967) The adaptive value of sexual dimorphism: I. Anisogamy. Evolution 21:285–291

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw RF, Mohler, JD (1953) The selective advantage of the sex ratio. Am Nat 87:337–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuster SM, Wade MJ (2003) Mating systems and strategies. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurjónsdóttir H, Parker GA (1981) Dung fly struggles: evidence for assessment strategy. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 8:219–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigurjónsdóttir H, Snorrason SS (1995) Distribution of male yellow dung flies around oviposition sites: the effect of body size. Ecol Entomol 20:84–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons LW (1992) Quantification of role reversal in relative parental investment in a bushcricket. Nature 358:61–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons LW, Fitzpatrick JL (2012) Sperm wars and the evolution of male fertility. Reproduction 144:519–534

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons LW, Stockley P, Jackson RL, Parker GA (1996) Sperm competition or sperm selection: no evidence for female influence over paternity in yellow dung flies, Scatophaga stercoraria. Behav Ecol Socioblol 38:199–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons LW, Parker GA, Stockley P (1999) Sperm displacement in the yellow dung fly, Scatophaga stercoraria: an investigation of male and female processes. Am Nat 153:302–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons LW, Emlen DJ, Tomkins JL (2007) Sperm competition games between sneaks and guards: a comparative analysis using dimorphic male beetles. Evolution 61:2684–2692

    Google Scholar 

  • Sirot LK, Wolfner MF, Wigby S (2011) Protein-specific manipulation of ejaculate composition in response to female mating status in Drosophila melanogaster. PNAS 108:9922–9926

    Google Scholar 

  • Siva-Jothy MT (2006) Trauma, disease and collateral damage: conflict in cimicids. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 361: 269–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockley P, Seal NJ (2001) Plasticity in reproductive effort of male dung flies (Scatophaga stercoraria) as a response to larval density. Funct Ecol 15:96–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockley P, Gage MJG, Parker GA, Møller AP (1997) Sperm competition in fishes: the evolution of testis size and ejaculate characteristics. Am Nat 149:933–954

    Google Scholar 

  • Tregenza T, Wedell N, Hosken DJ, Ward PI (2003) Maternal effects on offspring depend on female mating pattern and offspring environment in yellow dung flies. Evolution 57:297–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler PA, Reeves S, Peck L, Clarke A, Powell D (2003) Seasonal variation in the gametogenic ecology of the Antarctic scallop Adamussium colbecki. Polar Biol 26:727–733

    Google Scholar 

  • Vahed K, Parker DJ (2012) The evolution of large testes: sperm competition or male mating rate? Ethology 118:107–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Vahed K, Parker DJ, Gilbert JDJ (2011) Larger testes are associated with a higher level of polyandry, but a smaller ejaculate volume, across bushcricket species (Tettigoniidae). Biol Lett 7:261–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward PI (1993) Females influence sperm storage and use in the yellow dung fly Scathophaga stercoraria (L.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:313–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward PI (1998) A possible explanation for cryptic female choice in the yellow dung fly (L.), Scathophaga stercoraria. Ethology 104:97–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward PI (2000) Cryptic female choice in the yellow dung fly Scathophaga stercoraria (L.). Evolution 54:1680–1686

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward PI, Simmons LW (1991) Copula duration and testes size in the yellow dung fly, Scathophaga stercoraria (L.): the effects of diet, body size, and mating history. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:77–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward PI, Foglia M, Blanckenhorn WU (1999) Oviposition site choice in the yellow dung fly Scathophaga stercoraria. Ethology 105:423–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward PI, Vonwil J, Scholte EJ, Knop E (2002) Field experiments on the distributions of eggs of different phosphoglucomutase (PGM) genotypes in the yellow dung fly Scathophaga stercoraria (L.). Mol Ecol 11:1781–1785

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner RR, Shapiro DY, Marcanato A, Petersen CW (1995) Sexual conflict: males with highest mating success convey the lowest fertilization benefits to females. Proc R Soc Lond B 262:135–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster MS, Pruett-Jones S, Westneat DF, Arnold SJ (1995) Measuring the effects of pairing success, extra-pair copulations and mate quality on the opportunity for sexual selection. Evolution 49:1147–1157

    Google Scholar 

  • Weismann A (1889) Essays upon heredity and kindred biological problems. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • West SA (2009) Sex allocation. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • West SA, Gardner A (2010) Altruism, spite and greenbeards. Science 327:1341–1344

    Google Scholar 

  • West SA, Lively CM, Read AF (1999) A pluralist approach to sex and recombination. J Evol Biol 12:1003–1012

    Google Scholar 

  • Wild G, Pizzari T, West SA (2011) Sexual conflict in viscous populations: the effect of the timing of dispersal. Theor Popul Biol 80:298–316

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, L69 7ZB, Liverpool, UK

    Geoff A. Parker

  2. Edward Grey Institute, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, OX1 3PS, Oxford, UK

    Tommaso Pizzari

Authors
  1. Geoff A. Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tommaso Pizzari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geoff A. Parker .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Philosophy, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, Lyon, France

    Thierry Hoquet

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

We thank Thierry Houquet for inviting us to write this chapter, for inviting us to the workshop he organised on sexual selection, which GAP was unfortunately unable to attend. We are especially indebted to Dr. Cathy H. Lucas for information on Cnidaria and for kindly allowing us to include her unpublished results on Periphylla periphylla, and to Prof. Paul A. Tyler for much helpful advice and information on GSI in marine invertebrates.

The notion of sexual selection as a logical imperative arising through the sequence of evolutionary events leading to highly differentiated males and females was to have been the central theme of a book entitled The Evolution of Sexual Strategy by GAP during the 1970s. This project was 70 % accomplished, mostly during a year (1978–79) in the Research Centre of King’s College, Cambridge, but was never completed after his return to Liverpool University in September 1979. GAP has often regretted this failure, but wishes to thank King’s College, Cambridge for the opportunity to work in the Research Centre, which nevertheless proved most stimulating.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Parker, G., Pizzari, T. (2015). Sexual Selection: The Logical Imperative. In: Hoquet, T. (eds) Current Perspectives on Sexual Selection. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9585-2_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation