EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,869,633
Abstracts:
29,686,251
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

The inheritance of female mating behaviour in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida



The inheritance of female mating behaviour in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida



Genetical Research 64(1): 19-25



In order to understand the evolution of female mate preferences it is important to determine whether the genes for the preference and those for the preferred character are linked. It has previously been shown that female preference in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida, varies with the alpha-beta inversion system on chromosome I. This inversion system is known to genetically determine, at least in part, the male preferred character, large size. This study was undertaken to determine whether the genes determining mate preferences, as well as those determining female receptivity, co-inherit with the inversion. In the full sibs of animals recently collected from a natural population in Sweden it is shown that high acceptance rate and strong preference for large male size both co-segregate with the a form of the inversion, and that low acceptance rate and a weak preference for large size co-segregate with the beta form of the inversion. Both sets of genes appear to population from which the animals were collected was polymorphic for behavioural genes on the be located in or near the alpha-beta inversion. The heterogeneity between crosses suggests the natural indicated that variation in female mating behaviour had been lost. Possible reasons for the apparent instability of such behaviour are discussed.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 009592113

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

DOI: 10.1017/s001667230003250x



Related references

Female mating behaviour, sexual selection and chromosome I inversion karyotype in the seaweed fly, coelopa frigida. Heredity 82: 276-281, 1999

Female mating behaviour, sexual selection and chromosome I inversion karyotype in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Heredity: an international journal of genetics 82(3): 276-281, 1999

Female mating preference for large size in Coelopa frigida (seaweed fly). Heredity 69(3): 209-216, 1992

Genetic differences in mating success and female choice in seaweed flies coelopa frigida. Heredity 62(1): 123-132, 1989

Genetic differences in mating success and female choice in seaweed flies (Coelopa frigida). Heredity 62: 123-131, 1989

The benefits of multiple mating to female seaweed flies, Coelopa frigida (Diptera: Coelpidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 58(2): 128-135, 2005

Genetic correlation between a female mating preference and the preferred male character in seaweed flies (Coelopa frigida). Evolution 47(6): 1788-1795, 1993

Genetic Correlation Between A Female Mating Preference And The Preferred Male Character In Seaweed Flies (Coelopa Frigida). Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution 47(6): 1788-1795, 1993

Mating behavior in seaweed flies (Coelopa frigida). Journal of Insect Behavior, 31: 105-120, 1990

Non random mating in natural populations of the seaweed fly coelopa frigida. Heredity 58(2): 213-220, 1987

Differential mating success in populations of seaweed flies coelopa frigida. Heredity 58(2): 203-212, 1987

The effects of a chromosomal inversion on adult size and male mating success in the seaweed fly coelopa frigida. Heredity 49(1): 51-62, 1982

The adaptive significance of female remating in seaweed flies, Coelopa frigida. Pakistan Journal of Zoology 26(4): 351-359, 1994

Sex-biased phoretic mite load on two seaweed flies: Coelopa frigida and Coelopa pilipes. Environmental Entomology 38(6): 1608-1612, 2010

The function of female behaviours adopted during premating struggles in the seaweed fly, Coelopa frigida. Animal Behaviour 81(1): 77-82, 2011