Arnqvist (2004) raises some concerns with several of the points made by Pizzari and Snook (2003) on the study of sexually antagonistic coevolution (SAC) generated by sexual conflict, arguing that: (1) sexual conflict cannot be expressed in terms of average male and female fitness; (2) our criticism of current experimental approaches, particularly interpopulation crosses, is unjustified; and (3) the alternative experimental approach we proposed is problematic. Here we discuss and respond to these criticisms by: (1) clarifying that we can distinguish between SAC and mutualistic sexual coevolution by measuring changes in the average fitness of the reproducing subsamples of males and females of a population across generations, (2) maintaining that testing SAC using interpopulation crosses is undermined by the lack of a priori knowledge of what traits mediate SAC across isolated populations, and (3) reinforcing the advantages of our experimental approach to distinguish between sexually mutualistic and antagonistic selection.
How to translate text using browser tools
1 June 2004
SEXUAL CONFLICT AND SEXUAL SELECTION: MEASURING ANTAGONISTIC COEVOLUTION
Tommaso Pizzari,
Rhonda R. Snook
ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE
It is not available for individual sale.
This article is only available to subscribers.
It is not available for individual sale.
It is not available for individual sale.
Evolution
Vol. 58 • No. 6
June 2004
Vol. 58 • No. 6
June 2004
fitness
sexual conflict
sexual selection
sexually antagonistic coevolution