Indeed, the realization that one spermatozoan cell and one ovum n

Indeed, the realization that one spermatozoan cell and one ovum normally must unite to initiate embryonic development was one aspect of an emerging cell theory that had just begun to crystallize in the mid-1800s as a key adjunct to Mendel’s (1865) revolutionary discoveries about hereditary transmission. Darwin could not have presaged that the emergence of anisogamy (the disparity in size and mobility between male and female gametes) early in the history of multicellular life would later become appreciated as one of the ‘major transitions in evolution’ (Maynard Smith & Szathmáry, 1995). Indeed, anisogamy is now seen not only as

the universal basis for defining maleness and femaleness in nearly every sexual species, but also as being the ultimate root of many evolutionary ‘battles between the sexes’ over optimal reproductive tactics by males find more versus females. Given the social climate of the mid-1800s, coupled with the paucity of information about the genetic bases of sex and sexuality, it is little wonder that Darwin declined to speculate unduly about the diverse sexual modes and alternative mating lifestyles of animals.

In Darwin’s era and throughout the following century (well into the 1970s), essentially all inferences about animal reproductive activities in nature came from behavioral observations often coupled to evolutionary interpretations based on particular ecological or mating-system theories (e.g. Fisher, 1930; EPZ-6438 cell line Bateman, 1948; Ford, 1964; Williams, 1966; Lack, 1968; Emlen & Oring, 1977; Krebs & Davies, 1978). Beginning in the late-1960s, however, a succession of increasingly powerful molecular techniques were introduced that soon permitted direct genetic Sclareol appraisals of biological parentage (and hence of genetic mating systems) in natural populations (Avise, 1994), and also facilitated evolutionary

reconstructions of the phylogenetic histories of alternative reproductive practices across species and higher taxa (Harvey et al., 1996; Avise, 2006). These genetic and phylogenetic analyses opened everyone’s eyes to a plethora of reproductive shenanigans (including post-copulatory sperm competition) that had remained largely hidden or otherwise outside the spatial or temporal purview of even the most attentive field naturalists of earlier eras. These new sources of empirical information also rejuvenated interest in evolutionary theories about animal mating systems and reproductive behaviors (e.g. Trivers, 1972; Smith, 1984; Arnold & Duvall, 1994; Birkhead & Møller, 1998; Lucas & Simmons, 2006), which in turn gave further impetus to empirical studies in a synergism that continues to energize modern research in natural history and comparative reproductive biology.

Comments are closed.