Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T02:19:13.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Introduction: The evolutionary mystery of gamete dimorphism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2011

Paul Alan Cox
Affiliation:
Institute for Ethnomedicine, Jackson Hole, Wyoming, USA
Tatsuya Togashi
Affiliation:
Chiba University, Japan
Paul Alan Cox
Affiliation:
Institute for Ethnomedicine
Get access

Summary

We do not even in the least know the final cause of sexuality; why new beings should be produced by the union of the two sexual elements, instead of by a process of parthenogenesis.

Charles Darwin (1862)

The mystery which Darwin struggled with, the existence of sex in the plant and animal kingdoms, continues to fascinate biologists today. While many plant and animal species reproduce sexually, others continue to succeed with asexual reproduction.

Consider, for example, Prorodon utahensis, a small animal which flourishes in the hypersaline waters of the Great Salt Lake (Figure 0.1). There are few other forms of life that can tolerate these salinities, which have been measured at up to 27%. The quivering hair-like cilia of Prorodon provide its tiny body – scarcely the width of a human hair – with sufficient locomotion to zip about its otherwise lethal environment, consuming organic detritius, cyanobacteria and the salt-tolerant green alga Dunaliella. In the shallow waters of the Great Salt Lake, which are too salty for fish, these tiny Prorodon are the major hunters, the equivalent of sharks at the microscopic level. Reproduction in Prorodon is a simple matter – it simply splits in half. Without resorting to sexual recombination, Prorodon is able to lock in its genetic combination for survival and success in this most hostile of environments. Asexual reproduction also grants Prorodon utahensis a significant numerical advantage in progeny. A single individual splits, producing two, then four, then eight, then sixteen, then thirty-two genetically identical offspring.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Evolution of Anisogamy
A Fundamental Phenomenon Underlying Sexual Selection
, pp. 1 - 16
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

Austin, C. R. (1961). The Mammalian Egg. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, G. (1982). The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Bell, P. R. (1992). Green Plants: Their Origin and Diversity. Portland: Dioscorides Press.Google Scholar
Birkhead, T. R. and Montgomerie, R. (2009). Three centuries of sperm research. In Birkhead, T. R., Hosken, D. J., and Pitnick, S. (editors), Sperm Biology: An Evolutionary Perspective. Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Bjork, A. and Pitnick, S. (2006). Intensity of sexual selection along the anisogamy-isogamy continuum. Nature, 441, 742–745.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bode, M. and Marshall, D. J. (2007). The quick and the dead? Sperm competition and sexual conflict in sea. Evolution, 61, 2693–2700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corner, E. J. H. (1964). The Life of Plants. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Cox, P. A. (1988). Monomorphic and dimorphic sexual strategies: a modular approach. In Doust, J. Lovett and Doust, L. Lovett (editors), Plant Reproductive Ecology: Strategies and Patterns. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 80–97.Google Scholar
Cox, P. A. and Sethian, J. (1984). Search, encounter rates, and the evolution of anisogamy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 81, 6078–6079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, P. A. and Sethian, J. (1985). Gamete motion, search, and the evolution of anisogamy, oogamy, and chemotaxis. American Naturalist, 125(1), 74–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. R. (1862). On the two forms, or dimorphic condition, in the species of Primula, and on their remarkable sexual relations. [Read November 21, 1861]. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London (Botany), 6, 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farley, J. (1982). Gametes and Spores: Ideas about Sexual Reproduction 1760–1914. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Gage, M. J. G. and Morrow, E. H. (2003). Experimental evidence for the evolution of numerous, tiny sperm via sperm competition. Current Biology, 13, 754–757.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghiselin, M. T. (1974). The Economy of Nature and the Evolution of Sex. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gray, A. (1879). Introduction to Structural and Systematic Botany and Vegetable Physiology, 6th edn. New York: Ivison, Blakeman, Taylor & Company.Google Scholar
Hertwig, O. (1901). The Cell: Outlines of General Anatomy and Physiology. London: Swan Sonnenschein.Google Scholar
Kalmus, H. (1932). Über den Erhaltungswert der phänotypischen (morphologischen) Anisogamie und die Entstehung der ersetn Geschlechtusunterschiede. Biologische Zentralblatt, 52, 716–726.Google Scholar
Koopman, B. O. (1980). Search and Screening: General Principles with Historical Applications. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Lessells, C. M., Snook, R. R., and Hosken, D. J. (2009). The evolutionary origin and maintenance of sperm: selection for a small, motile gamete mating type. In Birkhead, T. R., Hosken, D. J., and Pitnick, S. (editors), Sperm Biology: An Evolutionary Perspective. Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp. 43–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maire, N., Ackermann, M., and Doebeli, M. (2001). Evolutionary branching and the evolution of anisogamy, Selection, 2, 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margulis, L. and Sagan, D. (1986). Origins of Sex. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, p. 195.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1978). The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nozaki, H. (2008). A new male-specific gene “OTOKOGI” in Pleodorina starrii (Volvocaceae, Chlorophyta) unveils the origin of male and female. Biologia, 63, 772–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, G. A., Baker, R. R., and Smith, V. G. F. (1972). The origin and evolution of gamete dimorphism and the male-female phenomenon. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 36, 529–553.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peierls, R. E. (1960). Wolfgang Ernst Pauli. 1900–1958. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, 5, 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roney, H. C., Booth, G. M., and Cox, P. A. (2009). Competitive exclusion of cyanobacterial species in the Great Salt Lake. Extremophiles, 13, 355–361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scudo, F. M. (1967). The adaptive value of sexual dimorphism. I. Anisogamy. Evolution, 21, 285–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strasburger, E., Jost, L., Schenck, H., and Karsten, G. (1921). A Text-book of Botany, 4th edn. London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
Togashi, T., Bartelt, J. L., and Cox, P. A. (2004). Simulation of gamete behaviors and the evolution of anisogamy: reproductive strategies of marine green algae. Ecological Research, 19, 563–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Togashi, T. and Cox, P. A. (2004). Phototaxis and the evolution of isogamy and “slight anisogamy” in marine green algae: insights from laboratory observations and numerical experiments. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 144, 321–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Togashi, T., Nagisa, M., Miyazaki, T., Yoshimura, J., Bartelt, J. L., and Cox, P. A. (2006). Gamete behaviours and the evolution of “marked anisogamy”: reproductive strategies and sexual dimorphism in Bryopsidales marine green algae. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 8, 617–628.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1975). Sex and Evolution. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, p. 113.Google ScholarPubMed
Willson, M. F. (1994). Sexual selection in plants: perspective and overview, The American Naturalist, 144, S13–S39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1977). Evolution of the Genetics of Populations: Experimental Results and Evolutionary Deductions, Vol. 3. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Yang, J.-N. (2010). Cooperation and the evolution of anisogamy. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 264, 24–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

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
×