Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:24:46.525Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Frequency dependence of mating success in Drosophila pseudoobscura

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Lee Ehrman
Lee Ehrman
Affiliation:
The Rockefeller University, New York City
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Matings of Drosophila pseudoobscura were observed in Elens-Wattiaux chambers, using individuals of three karyotypes: AR/AR, AR/CH and CH/CH. In each chamber two karyotypes were represented, with frequencies 10:10, 2:18 or 18:2. The males of the heterokaryotype AR/CH tend to have an advantage in mating compared to the homokaryotypes, provided that both kinds of males are equally frequent, i.e. the ratio 10:10. This advantage is further increased when the heterokaryotype is a minority, the ratio 2:18. When the homokaryotype, AR/AR or CH/CH, is a minority (18:2) it is equally or more successful than the heterokaryotype in securing mates. Among females, the mating success is independent of frequency, or the minority females have sometimes only a slight advantage.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , April 1968 , pp. 135 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

References

REFERENCES

Dobzhansky, Th. & Spassky, B. (1962). Selection for geotaxis in monomorphic and polymorphic populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 48, 1704–1712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ehrman, L. (1965). Direct observation of sexual isolation between allopatric and between sympatric strains of the different Drosophila paulistorum races. Evolution 19, 459–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrman, L. (1966). Mating success and genotype frequency in Drosophila. Anim. Behav. 14, 322–339.Google Scholar
Ehrman, L. (1968). Further studies on genotype frequency and mating success in Drosophila. Am. Nat. 102, (415–424).Google Scholar
Ehrman, L., Spassky, B., Pavlovsky, O. & Dobzhansky, Th. (1965). Sexual selection, geotaxis, and chromosomal polymorphism in experimental populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution 19, 337–346.Google Scholar
Elens, A. A. & Wattiaux, J. M. (1964). Direct observation of sexual isolation. Drosoph. Inf. Serv. 39, 118–119.Google Scholar
Kojima, K. & Yarbrough, K. M. (1967). Frequency-dependent selection at the esterase 6 locus in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 57, 645–649.Google Scholar
Malogolowkin-Cohen, C., Simmons, A. S. & Levene, H. (1965). A study of sexual isolation between certain strains of Drosophila paulistorum. Evolution 19, 95–103.Google Scholar
Tobari, Y. N. & Kojima, K. (1967). Selective modes associated with inversion karyotypes in D. ananassae. I. Frequency-dependent selection. Genetics 57, 179–188.Google Scholar