Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-21T22:05:49.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Contact, not conflict, causes the evolution of anisogamy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2011

By
Joan Roughgarden  and
Priya Iyer
Edited by
Tatsuya Togashi  and
Paul Alan Cox
Joan Roughgarden
Affiliation:
Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Priya Iyer
Affiliation:
IISER, Pashan, Pune, India
Tatsuya Togashi
Affiliation:
Chiba University, Japan
Paul Alan Cox
Affiliation:
Institute for Ethnomedicine
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

In common with all religions, biology offers a creation story for male and female. Unlike religious myths, biology's creation stories are scientific claims and subject to scientific examination. Today, the mainstream evolutionary theories for the origin of male and female propose that sexual conflict causes the evolution of the distinction between males and females. In this chapter we propose instead that the male/female distinction did not arise from sexual conflict, but as a tactic to maximize the contact rate between gametes. This chapter follows closely the treatment in Iyer and Roughgarden (2008) and Roughgarden (2009).

Anisogamy defines the distinction between the sexes – the male individual or organ is characterized by production of small gametes (sperm) and the female by the production of large gametes (eggs) (Stearns, 1987). Isogamy – the production of equally sized gametes, may be the ancestral condition because its occurrence is restricted to primitive taxa among algae, fungi, and protozoa (Bell, 1978). Hence the origin of males and females can be traced back to the evolution of anisogamy from isogamy.

Kalmus (1932) was the first to propose a model for the evolution of anisogamy. He supposed that the size of gametes produced by each sex traded off against the number of gametes produced. Zygotes are formed by collisions between eggs and sperm and hence the number of zygotes produced by a population is proportional to the product of the total number of eggs and the total number of sperm produced by its members.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Evolution of Anisogamy
A Fundamental Phenomenon Underlying Sexual Selection
 , pp. 96 - 110
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnqvist, G. and Rowe, L. (2005). Sexual Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, G. (1978). The evolution of anisogamy. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 73, 247–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bulmer, M. and Parker, G. A. (2002). The evolution of anisogamy: a game-theoretic approach. Proceedings of The Royal Society of London Series B – Biological Science, 269, 2381–2388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charlesworth, B. (1978). The population genetics of anisogamy. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 73, 347–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charnov, E. (1982). The Theory of Sex Allocation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Iyer, P. and Roughgarden, J. (2008). Gametic conflict versus contact in the evolution of anisogamy. Theoretical Population Biology, 73, 461–472.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalmus, H. (1932). Ueber den erhaltungswert den phaenotypischen anisogamie und die entstehung der ersten geschlectsunterschiede. Biologisches Zentralblatt, 52, 716.Google Scholar
Kalmus, H. and Smith, B. (1960). Evolutionary origin of sexual differentiation and the sex-ratio. Nature, 186, 1004–1006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kingman, J. (1961). A mathematical problem in population genetics. Proceedings of The Cambridge Philosophical Society Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 57, 574–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitan, D. R. (2000). Optimal egg size in marine invertebrates: theory and phylogenetic analysis of the critical relationship between egg size and development time in Echinoids. American Naturalist, 156, 175–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levitan, D. R., and Petersen, C. (1995) Sperm limitation in the sea. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 228–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maire, N., Ackermann, M., and Doebeli, M. (2002). Evolutionary branching and the evolution of anisogamy. Selection, 2, 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsuda, H. and Abrams, P. (1999). Why are equally sized gametes so rare? The instability of isogamy and the cost of anisogamy. Evolutionaly Ecology Reserch, 1, 769–784.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A. (1978). Selection on non-random fusion of gametes during the evolution of anisogamy. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 73, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, G. A. (1979). Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In Blum, M. and Blum, N. A. (editors), Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects. New York: Academic Press, pp. 123–166.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A. (2006). Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 361, 235–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, G. A., Baker, R., and Smith, V. (1972). The origin and evolution of gamete dimorphism and the male-female phenomenon. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 36, 529–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Randerson, J. and Hurst, L. (2001). A comparative test of a theory for the evolution of anisogamy. Proceedings of The Royal Society of London Series B Biological Science, 268, 879–884.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roughgarden, J. (2009). The Genial Gene: Deconstructing Darwinian Selfishness. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Scudo, F. (1967). The adaptive value of sexual dimorphism: I, Anisogamy. Evolution, 21, 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stearns, S. (1987). Why sexes evolved and the difference it makes. In Stearns, S. (editor), The Evolution of Sex and its Consequences. Basel: Birkhäuser, pp. 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vance, R. (1973). On reproductive strategies in marine benthic invertebrates. American Naturalist, 107, 339–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×