Male and female genital morphology varies widely across many taxa, and even among populations. Disentangling potential sources of selection on genital morphology is problematic because each sex is predicted to respond to adaptations in the other due to reproductive conflicts of interest. To test how variation in this sexual conflict trait relates to variation in genital morphology we used our previously developed artificial selection lines for high and low repeated mating rates. We selected for high and low repeated mating rates using monogamous pairings to eliminate contemporaneous female choice and male–male competition. Male and female genital shape responded rapidly to selection on repeated mating rate. High and low mating rate lines diverged from control lines after only 10 generations of selection. We also detected significant patterns of male and female genital shape coevolution among selection regimes. We argue that because our selection lines differ in sexual conflict, these results support the hypothesis that sexually antagonistic coevolution can drive the rapid divergence of genital morphology. The greatest divergence in morphology corresponded with lines in which the resolution of sexual conflict over mating rate was biased in favor of male interests.

No abstract

Humans form abstract representations about the physical properties of objects, with very young infants having 'core knowledge' about solidity and continuity. Whether nonhuman primates also form abstract representation of physical properties is debated. Despite studies showing that some nonhuman primates can discriminate between functional and non-functional tools, whether they achieve this by recognizing an object's physical properties or via associative learning of perceptual cues remains contested. One method for exploring an individual's physical cognition is the trap-tube (where subjects push a reward out of a pipe whilst avoiding a trap). The trap-tube investigates whether participants understand that rewards cannot pass through solid objects (solidity) and that unsupported objects will fall (gravity). Initial research reported that chimpanzees and capuchin monkeys solved the test using associative rules; however, modifying the task by removing the tool revealed an understanding of solidity in chimpanzees. In this series of studies, we tested 12 squirrel monkeys and 14 capuchin monkeys on a modified trap-box, where the monkeys could move the reward using their fingers rather than a tool. No individual of either species passed the task at above chance levels. In Experiment 2, the same trap blocked one of two cups: both species learned to avoid it. In Experiment 3, only capuchins generalized this solution to novel materials, performing better when cues had a functional versus a non-functional relationship to the outcome. Squirrel monkeys appeared to learn via association, while results from capuchins indicated a sensitivity to the concept of solidity.