Copulation behavior inside and outside the beetleMacrohaltica jamaicensis (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae)

Eberhard, William G.; Kariko, Sarah

doi:10.1007/bf02350093

Cited by 22 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most effective technique is direct observation of male genital structures that contact only the outer surface of the female and that are thus not hidden inside her, or those that are periodically withdrawn from her [19,23,[32][33][34][35][36][37]. Other techniques for studying male genital structures that remain inside the female include flash freezing at different stages of copulation [14,16,28,[34][35][36]; observation through the semi-transparent body wall of the female [38]; observation of artificially induced behavior of intromittent genitalia via electric shocks [39]; partial anesthesia of the male [40]; stimulation of the genitalia after removing the head of the male [41]; and X-ray video recordings [41] (interpretation of the significance of genital form and behavior resulting from artificial inflation or erection outside the female needs care, however, because the genitalia of some groups assume quite different forms when they are constrained during copulation by contact with the female [42]). Although none of these techniques can give a complete understanding of genital behavior during copulation, they can sometimes help discriminate among possibilities.…”

Section: Other Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiments with genitalia: a commentary

Eberhard

2011

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Other Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experiments with genitalia: a commentary

Eberhard

2011

Trends in Ecology & Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…More specifically, conflicts over holding and positioning the female genitalia so that intromission can occur (a probable function of male genitalic claspers in many species • see Table 1 and below), over prying open or penetrating deeper to reach optimal sperm deposition sites after initial intromission (e.g. Eberhard, 1993 a;Eberhard & Kariko, 1996;Tallamy et at., in press), or over preventing or inhibiting the female from subsequently discarding the male's sperm, are not expected to occur in groups in which females are protected from male harassment. This is because a protected female will presumably not come into contact with a male except in order to receive sperm.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Eberhard¹

2004

Biological Reviews

Self Cite

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

“…In fact, there is a large body of work on these species (much of which was cited in our paper) that describes which portions of the male's body are brought into play during sexual interactions and which thus enabled us to be careful in this regard. We and our coauthors have published descriptions (some in quite painful detail) of the sexual behavior of 11 of the 20 species: Huber and Eberhard (1997) on Physocyclus globosus; Huber (1997) on Metagonia rica; Eberhard (1993a) on Macrodactylus sylphis; Eberhard (1993b) on Phyllophaga obsoleta; Rodriguez (1994) on Chelymorpha alternans; Eberhard and Kariko (1996) on Macrohaltica jamaicensis; Rodriguez (1998a) on Pseudoxychila tarsalis; Eberhard and Pereira (1996) and Eberhard (unpubl. ms.) on Archisepsis diversiformis; Briceno et al (1996) and Briceno and Eberhard (1998) on Ceratitis capitata (the extensive literature on this species is reviewed by Eberhard, 1999); Rodriguez (l998b and 1999) on Ozophora baranowskii; and Briceno and Eberhard (1997) on Paralabella dorsalis.…”

Section: Why Are Genitalia Different?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Don't Forget the Biology: A Reply to Green

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In our 1998 paper (Eberhard et al. 1998), we tested several hypotheses regarding the possible selective factors involved in the evolution of animal genitalia. We compared the slopes of log-log ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions of genitalia on indicators of body size with the slopes of other body parts on the same indicators in 20 species of insects and spiders. Our major conclusions regarding the rejection of male-female conflict, good viability genes, and lock and key arguments (see Abstract) are unaffected by the reanalysis proposed by Green (1999), even if it were more appropriate than ours, which we doubt (see below).In neither our OLS regressions nor Green's reduced major axis (RMA) regressions are the slopes of genitalia greater than those of other body parts, as would be expected if genitalia were used as weapons in forceful intraspecific battles (the male-female conflict hypothesis) or as signals of male size (good viability genes hypothesis). Instead, the slopes show a statistically significant trend to be lower in both analyses. In addition, neither we nor Green found differences on comparing the slopes of the genitalia of the species in which lock and key considerations might be important (species in which male genitalia fit against rigid female genitalic structures) with the slopes in species in which lock and key can be ruled out because of the mechanical mesh of the male's genitalia with those of the female. So, conservatively, we conclude that the major conclusions of our paper are not affected under Green's reanalysis. It is important not to lose sight of the biological questions being tested in debates over statistical methods.There are a number of reasons, however, to doubt several of Green's points. Green's claim that reanalysis is needed, the analysis he performed, and the additional explanations that he proposed in preference to those we mentioned in our original paper all have serious problems. We will discuss first the statistical questions, and then the more directly biological questions. Is RMA Regression More Appropriate?Many of Green's objections (see the first half of his final, summary paragraph) hinge on the different values he obtained when he used RMA regression analyses. We struggled with the question of whether we should use RMA rather than OLS regressions while we were preparing our original paper, and finally decided against RMA for two reasons. The first is that it is not obvious which of the two types of regression is more appropriate, despite the impression given by Green. For instance, Sokal and Rohlf (1995, p. 544) mention that the RMA regression technique has been the subject of "serious criticisms" (see also reservations expressed by MeArdle 1988; Martin and Barbour 1989). LaBarbera (1989) states that "OLS regression is appropriate only when the goal is to ... allow prediction of expected values given one of the two variables" (which is the "good genes" hypothesis we wanted to test). Sokal and Rohlf also note that if a causality relation exists between variable...

show abstract

Copulation behavior inside and outside the beetleMacrohaltica jamaicensis (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae)

Abstract: --Copulation behavior in Macrohaltica jamaicensis involved a complex, relative-

Cited by 22 publications

References 10 publications

Experiments with genitalia: a commentary

Experiments with genitalia: a commentary

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

Don't Forget the Biology: A Reply to Green

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About