4.2 Article

The secondary copulatory organ in female ground weta (Hemiandrus pallitarsis, Orthoptera: Anostostomatidae):: a sexually selected device in females?

Journal

BIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY
Volume 85, Issue 4, Pages 463-469

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00510.x

Keywords

Ensifera; genitalia; nuptial gifts; secondary sexual organs; sexual dimorphism

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Secondary sexual devices in female insects, primarily abdominal modifications, appear to function as a means of thwarting coercive mating attempts by males or are, in rare cases, sexually selected adaptations. Female ground weta, Hemiandrus pallitarsis (Orthoptera: Anostostomatidae), have an elaborate elbowed device on the underside of the mid-abdomen. Experimental removal of this accessory organ shows that it does not increase the probability of mating as predicted by the thwart-copulation hypothesis. Instead, removal prevents copulation, thus demonstrating that it is a secondary copulatory device. The male attaches to the organ both at the beginning of copulation and at the end, when he positions himself to adhere a spermatophylax food gift onto the mid-ventral region of his mate. The female accessory organ does not function to manipulate eggs or larvae (females provide care to their single clutch of offspring) and is unlikely to be a copulatory structure that prevents hybridization. The great extent of the modification of the ventral abdominal segments of H. pallitarsis females compared to other Hemiandrus species is consistent with a history of sexual selection on the accessory organ. Taken together, these results and the finding that the length of the accessory organ of H. pallitarsis correlates with female fecundity, suggest that this structure evolved under sexual selection to acquire nuptial gifts from males. (c) 2005 The Linnean Society of London.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available