Skip to main content
Log in

Laboratory-induced changes in the mate recognition system ofDrosophila pseudoobscura

  • Published:
Behavior Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drosophila pseudoobscura stocks maintained in laboratory culture for some time had altered mate recognition systems compared with recently collected control stocks. Three showed a significant deviation from random mating; in one, a tendency toward homogametic mating was recorded. Such deviations are in marked contrast to results from populations which have been recently collected from the field. Asymmetrical mating was observed in two of the crosses in the direction predicted by the Kaneshiro model.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahearn, J. N. (1980). Evolution of behavioural reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock ofDrosophila silvestris.Experientia 36:63–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, W. W., and Ehrman, L. (1969). Mating choice in crosses between geographic populations ofDrosophila pseudoobscura.Am. Midland Nat.,81:47–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arita, L. H., and Kaneshiro, K. (1979). Ethological isolation between two stocks ofDrosophila adiastola.Proc. Hawaii Entomol. Soc. 23:31–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, E. H., Kence, A., and Kimball, K. T. (1980). A rare-male advantage in housefly induced by wing clipping and some general considerations forDrosophila.Genetics 96:975–993.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, H. L. (1982). Speciation as a major reorganization of the polygenic balance. In Barigizzi, C. (ed.),Mechanism of Speciation, Alan R. Liss, New York, pp. 411–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth, B., Lande, R., and Slatkin, M. (1982). A neo-darwinian commentary on macroevolution.Evolution 36(3):474–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Solar, E. (1966). Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis inDrosophila pseudoobscura.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.,56:484–487.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, Th. (1963). Species inDrosophila.Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond.,174:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eoff, M. (1973). The effect of being cultured together on hybridization betweenDrosophila melanogaster andDrosophila simulans.Am. Nat. 107:247–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddings, L. V., and Templeton, A. R. (1983). Behavioral phylogenies and the direction of evolution.Science 220:372–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, B. C. (1979). On morphogenetic fields.Theoria Theory 13:109–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goux, J. M., and Anxolabehere, D. (1980). The measurement of sexual isolation and selection: A critique.Heredity 45:255–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hailman, J. P. (1975).Optical Signals: Animal Communication and Light, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, N. R., and Lambert, D. M. (1982). No significant deviation from random mating of world wide populations ofDrosophila melanogaster.Nature 300:437–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaneshiro, K. Y. (1976). Ethological isolation and phylogeny in thePlanitibia subgroup of HawaiianDrosophila.Evolution 30:740–745.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaneshiro, K. Y., (1980). Sexual isolation, speciation and the direction of evolution.Evolution 34:437–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaneshiro, K. Y. (1983). Sexual selection and direction of evolution in the biosystematics of HawaiianDrosophila.Annu. Rev. Entomol. 28:161–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, D. M. (1984). Specific-mate recognition systems, phylogenies and asymmetrical evolution.J. Theoret. Biol. 109:147–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, D. M., and Hughes, T. (1984). The misery of functionalism.Riv. Biol. 77:477–501.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, D. M., and Paterson, H. E. H. (1984). On bridging the gap between race and species: The isolation concept and an alternative.Biol. J. Linn. Soc. NSW 107:501–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, D. M., Kingett, P. D., and Slooten, E. (1982). Intersexual selection: The problem and a discussion of the evidence.Evol. Theory 6:67–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, D. M., Spencer, H. G., and Millar, C. D. (1985). What Kaneshiro “really said” about asymmetrical mating.Evol. Theory 7:165–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Løvtrup, S. (1974).Epigenetics: A Treatise on Theoretical Biology, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E., and Dobzhansky, Th. (1945). Experiments on sexual isolation inDrosophila. IV. Modification of the degree of isolation betweenD. pseudoobscura andD. persimilis and of sexual preferences inD. proaltans.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 31:75–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, C. D. and Lambert, D. M. (1985). The mating behaviour of individuals ofDrosophila pseudoobscura from New Zealand,Experientia 41:950–952.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, H. E. H. (1980). A comment on mate recognition systems.Evolution 34:330–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, H. E. H. (1981). The continuing search for the unknown and unknowable: A critique of contemporary ideas on speciation.Sth. Afr. J. Sci.,77:113–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, J. R. (1978). The founder-flush speciation theory: An experimental approach.Evolution 32:465–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, J. R., and Morton, L. (1979). Inbreeding and the mating patterns inDrosophila pseudoobscura.Behav. Genet.,9:425–429.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prakash, S. (1972). Origin of reproductive isolation in the absence of apparent genetic differentiation in a geographic isolate ofDrosophila pseudoobscura.Genetics 72:143–155.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rachootin, S. P., and Thomson, K. S. (1981). Epigenetics, palaeontology and evolution. In Scudder, G. G. E., and Reveal, J. L. (eds.),Evolution Today, Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Systematics and Evolutionary Biology, Carnege-Mellon University, Pittsburgh.

  • Sonneborn, T. M. (1970). Gene action in development.Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. 176:347–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiess, E. B. (1968). Courtship and mating time inDrosophila pseudoobscura.Anim. Behav. 16:470–479.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, C. C. (1946). Genetics of sexual isolation betweenDrosophila pseudoobscura andDrosophila persimilis.Genetics,31:558–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watanabe, T. K., and Kawanishi, M. (1979). Mating preferences and the direction of evolution inDrosophila.Science 205:906–907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, G., and Goodwin, B. C. (1982) The origin of species: A structuralist approach.J. Soc. Biol. Struct. 5:15–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, P. A. (1971).Within the Gates of Science and Beyond: Science and Its Cultural Commitments, Hafner, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This research is supported by New Zealand University Grants Committee Grant 141Z164/D. M. Lambert. The authors with to thank L. Barr, D. F. Poulson, A. Beckenach, R. A. Norman, and B. C. Moore for their kind assistance in sending us cultures.

This contribution represents publication No. 12 from the Evolutionary Genetics Laboratory, University of Auckland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Millar, C.D., Lambert, D.M. Laboratory-induced changes in the mate recognition system ofDrosophila pseudoobscura . Behav Genet 16, 285–294 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01070804

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01070804

Key Words

Navigation