Anatomy, Histology, and Post-larval Development of the Reproductive Systems of the Sugarbeet Root Maggot1, 2

Klostermeyer, Lyle E.; Anderson, A. W.

doi:10.1093/aesa/69.4.625

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The male of Musca domestica also pulls on the ovipositor and extends it early in copulation (Tobin and Stoffolano, 1973). Caution must be exercised in generalizing however, as illustrated by the finding that the similarly elongate male genitalia of the otitid Tetanops myopaeformis do not simply extend along the female vagina, but are coiled in her bursa (Klostermeyer and Anderson, 1976). Basic aspects of genitalic coupling varied even among different species of the sphaerocerid genus Coproica (Lachmann, 1994), and the sepsid genus Archisepsis (W. Eberhard, in prep.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Process of Intromission in the Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidiae)

Eberhard

Pereira

1995

Psyche: A Journal of Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The distiphallus of the male ofCeratitis capitatais folded back 180° onto the basiphallus during the early stages of intromission, and is then unfolded within the female. Repeated folding and unfolding may occur within the female. Two membranous sacs on the distiphallus are capable of rhythmic cycles of inflation and deflation. Inflations of the sac near the base of the distiphallus probably help propel the aedeagus deeper into the female, along with periodic stiffening of the basiphallus; inflation of the larger, distal sac may drive the genital rod (which does not transfer sperm) into the ventral receptacle.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Process of Intromission in the Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidiae)

Eberhard

Pereira

1995

Psyche: A Journal of Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Arthropod pests of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.)

Edde¹

2022

Field Crop Arthropod Pests of Economic Importance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Male–female conflict and genitalia: failure to confirm predictions in insects and spiders

Eberhard¹

2004

Biological Reviews

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some recent models suggest a new role for evolutionary arms races between males and females in sexual selection. Female resistance to males is proposed to be driven by the direct advantage to the female of avoiding maleimposed reductions in the number of offspring she can produce, rather than by the indirect advantage of selecting among possible sires for her offspring, as in some traditional models of sexual selection by female choice. This article uses the massive but hitherto under-utilized taxonomic literature on genitalic evolution to test, in a twostep process, whether such new models of arms races between males and females have been responsible for rapid divergent evolution of male genitalia. The test revolves around the prediction that 'new arms races' are less likely to occur in species in which females are largely or completely protected from unwanted sexual attentions from males (e.g. species which mate in leks or in male swarms, in which males attract females from a distance, or in which females initiate contact by attracting males from a distance).The multiple possible mechanical functions of male genitalia are summarized, and functions of male genitalic structures in 43 species in 21 families of Diptera are compiled. Functions associated with intromission and insemination (e.g. seizing and positioning the female appropriately, pushing past possible barriers within the female, orienting within the female to achieve sperm transfer), which are unlikely to be involved in new arms races when females are protected, are shown to be common ( > 50 % of documented cases). This information is then used to generate the new arms race prediction: differences in genitalic form among congeneric species in which females are protected should be less common than differences among congeneric species in which females are vulnerable to harassment by males. This prediction was tested using a sample of 361 genera of insects and spiders. The prediction clearly failed, even when the data were adjusted to take into account several possible biases. Comparative analyses within particular taxonomic groups also failed to show the predicted trends, as did less extensive data on other non-genitalic male display traits. Arms races, as defined in some recent models, seem to have been less important in male•female coevolution of genitalic structures than has been suggested. By elimination, alternative interpretations, such as traditional female choice, which do not predict associations between female protection from harassment and rapid divergent evolution, are strengthened.

show abstract

Anatomy, Histology, and Post-larval Development of the Reproductive Systems of the Sugarbeet Root Maggot1, 2

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

The Process of Intromission in the Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidiae)

The Process of Intromission in the Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidiae)

Arthropod pests of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.)

Male–female conflict and genitalia: failure to confirm predictions in insects and spiders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About