Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T01:45:42.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - The origin and maintenance of two sexes (anisogamy), and their gamete sizes by gamete competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2011

Geoff A. Parker
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Tatsuya Togashi
Affiliation:
Chiba University, Japan
Paul Alan Cox
Affiliation:
Institute for Ethnomedicine
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

It is generally assumed (e.g. Maynard Smith, 1978; 1982) that ancestrally, gametes were small and isogamous (monomorphic). The evolution of anisogamy (gamete dimorphism) is a crucial transition in evolution (Maynard Smith and Szathmáry, 1995): it represents the evolution of the two sexes, males and females. Following Parker et al. (1972), I favor defining a sex in relation to the type of gamete a sexual phenotype carries. A sex is thus an adult phenotype defined in terms of the size of (haploid) gamete it produces: in an anisogamous population, males produce microgametes and females produce macrogametes. A simultaneous hermaphrodite is thus both male and female simultaneously, and a sequential hermaphrodite transforms sequentially from male to female (or vice versa). This definition of a sex differs from one that defines a sex in terms of gamete mating types (e.g. Wiese, 1981; Hoekstra, 1990). Under the Parker et al. definition of a sex in terms of gamete size, a mating type is not considered to be a sex, but simply a gametic type (that may or may not be related to gamete size) that shows a preference for fusion with certain other gamete types. In isogamous populations, there is thus one sex (though there may be several mating types). Retaining the definition of a sex for an adult phenotype that produces a given gamete size, and a mating type for a gamete phenotype that has a given characteristic for selective fusion may serve to remove some of the confusions that have arisen in the literature.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Evolution of Anisogamy
A Fundamental Phenomenon Underlying Sexual Selection
, pp. 17 - 74
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

Alexopoulos, C. J. (1962). Introductory Mycology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Arnqvist, G. and Rowe, L. (2005). Sexual Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, M. A. and Parker, G. A. (1996). Sperm competition games: external fertilization and “adaptive” infertility. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 180, 141–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ball, M. A. and Parker, G. A. (1997). Sperm competition games: inter- and intra-species results of a continuous external fertilization model. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 186, 459–466.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ball, M. A. and Parker, G. A. (2000). Sperm competition games: a comparison of loaded raffle models and their biological implications. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 206, 487–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, G. (1978). The evolution of anisogamy. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 73, 247–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, G. (1982). The Masterpiece of Nature. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Bell, G. (1985). The origin and evolution of germ cells as illustrated by the Volvocales. In Halvorson, H. O. and Monroy, A. (editors), Orgin and Evolution of Sex. New York: Allan R. Liss, pp. 221–256.Google Scholar
Birkhead, T. R. and Møller, A. P. (editors) (1998). Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection. London: Academic Press.
Bjork, A. and Pitnick, S. (2006). Intensity of sexual selection along the anisogamy-isogamy continuum. Nature, 441, 742–745.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonsall, M. B. (2006). The evolution of anisogamy: the adaptive significance of damage, repair and mortality. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 238, 198–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bryan, J. H. (1968). Results of consecutive matings of female Anopheles gambiae species B with fertile and sterile males. Nature, 218, 489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bulmer, M. G. (1994). Theoretical Evolutionary Ecology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc.Google Scholar
Bulmer, M. G. and Parker, G. A. (2002). The evolution of anisogamy: a game-theoretic approach. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 2381–2388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bulmer, M. G., Luttikhuizen, P. C., and Parker, G. A. (2002). Survival and anisogamy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 17, 357–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlesworth, B. (1978). The population genetics of anisogamy. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 73, 347–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charnov, E. L. (1976). Optimal foraging: the marginal value theorem. Theoretical Population Biology, 9, 129–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clutton-Brock, T. H. and Vincent, A. C. J. (1991). Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature, 351, 487–489.Google ScholarPubMed
Cosmides, L. M. and Tooby, J. (1981). Cytoplasmic inheritance and intragenomic conflict. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 89, 83–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, P. A. and Sethian, J. A. (1984). Search, encounter rates, and the evolution of anisogamy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 81, 6078–6079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, P. A. and Sethian, J. A. (1985). Gamete motion, search and the evolution of anisogamy, oogamy, and chemotaxis. American Naturalist, 125, 74–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czárán, T. L. and Hoekstra, R. F. (2004). Evolution of sexual symmetry. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 4, 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dusenbery, D. B. (2000). Selection for high gamete encounter rates explains the success of male and female mating types. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 202, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dusenbery, D. B. (2002). Ecological models explaining the success of distinctive sperm and eggs (oogamy). Journal of Theoretical Biology, 219, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dusenbery, D. B. (2006). Selection for high gamete encounter rates explains the evolution of anisogamy using plausible assumptions about size relationships of swimming speed and duration. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 241, 33–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emlen, S. T. and Oring, L. W. (1977). Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science, 197, 215–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eshel, I. (1983). Evolutionary and continuous stability. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 103, 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1930). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomendio, M. and Roldan, E. R. S. (1991). Sperm competition influences sperm size in mammals. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 243, 181–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoekstra, R. F. (1984). Evolution of gamete motility differences. II. Interaction with the evolution of anisogamy. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, R. F. (1987). The evolution of sexes. In Stearns, S. C. (editor), The Evolution of Sex and its Consequences. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag, pp. 59–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, R. F. (1990). The evolution of male–female dimorphism – older than sex. Journal of Genetics, 69, 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, L. D. (1996). Why are there only two sexes? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 263, 415–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalmus, H. (1932). Über den Erhaltungswet den phenotypishen (morphologishen) Anisogamie und die Entstehung der ersten Geshlectsuntershiede. Biologische Zentralblatt, 52, 716.Google Scholar
Kalmus, H. and Smith, C. A. B. (1960). Evolutionary origin of sexual differentiation and the sex-ratio. Nature, 186, 1004–1006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knowlton, N. (1974). A note on the evolution of gamete dimorphism. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 46, 283–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoekstra, R. F., Janz, R. F., and Schilstra, A. J. (1984). Evolution of gamete motility differences I. Relation between swimming speed and pheromonal attraction. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Immler, S., Pitnick, S., Parker, G. A., et al. (2011). Resolving variation in reproductive trade-offs: sperm size versus number. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (in press).CrossRef
Iwasa, Y. and Sasaki, A. (1987). Evolution of the number of sexes. Evolution, 41, 49–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iyer, P. and Roughgarden, J. (2008). Gametic conflict versus contact in the evolution of anisogamy. Theoretical Population Biology, 73, 461–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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., and Pitnick, S. (editors), Sperm Biology: An Evolutionary Perspective. London: Academic Press, pp. 43–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitan, D. R. (1993). The importance of sperm limitation to the evolution of egg size in marine invertebrates. American Naturalist, 141, 517–536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levitan, D. R. (1996a). Predicting optimal and unique egg sizes in free-spawning marine invertebrates. American Naturalist, 148, 174–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitan, D. R. (1996b). Effects of gamete traits on fertilization in the sea and the evolution of sexual dimorphism. Nature, 382, 153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitan, D. R. (1998). Sperm limitation, gamete competition, and sexual selection in external fertilizers. In Birkhead, T. R. and Møller, A. P. (editors), Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection. London: Academic Press, pp. 175–218.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. (2006). The relationship between egg size and fertilization success in broadcast-spawning macine invertebrates. Ingetratise and Comparative Biology, 46, 298–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, R. A. (editor) (1976). The Genetics of Algae. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lombardi, J. (1998). Comparative Vertebrate Reproduction. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, J. D. and Waller, D. M. (1983). A note on the evolution of gamete dimorphism in algae. American Naturalist, 121, 443–447.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. A. (1999). Why are equally sized gametes so rare? The instability of isogamy and the cost of anisogamy. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 1, 769–784.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1978). The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. and Szathmáry, E. (1995). The Major Transitions in Evolution. San Francisco, CA: W. J. Freeman.Google Scholar
McNamara, J. M., Houston, A. I., Barta, Z., and Osorno, J.-L. (2003). Should young ever be better off with one parent than with two? Behavioral Ecology, 14, 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, G. A. (1970). Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects. Biological Reviews, 45, 525–567.CrossRefGoogle 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. S. and Blum, N. A. (editors), Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects. New York: Academic Press, pp. 123–166.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A. (1982). Why are there so many tiny sperm? Sperm competition and the maintenance of two sexes. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 96, 281–294 and 98, 707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, G. A. (1984). The producer/scrounger model and its relevance to sexuality. In Barnard, C. J. (editor), Producers and Scroungers: Strategies of Exploitation and Parasitism. London: Croom Helm, pp. 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, G. A. (1985). Models of parent–offspring conflict. V. Effects of the behaviour of the two parents. Animal Behaviour, 33, 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, G. A. (1993). Sperm competition games: sperm size and sperm number under adult control. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 253, 245–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, G. A. (1998). Sperm competition and the evolution of ejaculates: towards a theory base. In Birkhead, T. R. and Møller, A. P. (editors), Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection. London: Academic Press, pp. 3–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, G. A. (2006). Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization – an overview. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 361, 235–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, G. A. and Ball, M. A. (2005). Sperm competition, mating rate and the evolution of testis and ejaculate sizes: a population model. Biology Letters, 1, 235–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, G. A. and Begon, M. (1986). Optimal egg size and clutch size: effects of environment and maternal phenotype. American Naturalist, 128, 573–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, G. A. and Begon, M. E. (1993). Sperm competition games: sperm size and sperm number under gametic control. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 253, 255–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, G. A. and Pizzari, T. (2010). Sperm competition and ejaculate economics. Biological Reviews, doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185x.2010.00140.x.CrossRef
Parker, G. A. and Simmons, L. W. (1991). A model of constant random sperm displacement during mating: evidence from Scatophaga. Biological Sciences, 246, 107–115.Google ScholarPubMed
Parker, G. A. and Stuart, R. A. (1976). Animal behaviour as a strategy optimizer: evolution of resource assessment strategies and optimal emigration thresholds. American Naturalist, 110, 1055–1076.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
Parker, G. A., Ball, M. A., Stockley, P., and Gage, M. J. G. (1996). Sperm competition games: individual assessment of sperm competition intensity by group spawners. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 263, 1291–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, G. A., Ball, M. A., Stockley, P., and Gage, M. J. G. (1997). Sperm competition games: a prospective analysis of risk assessment. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 264, 1793–1802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, G. A., Immler, S., Pitnick, S., et al. (2010). Sperm competition games: sperm size and number under raffle and displacement, and the evolution of P2. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 264, 1003–1023.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, G. A., Simmons, L. W. and Kirk, H. (1990). Analysing sperm competition data: simple models for predicting mechanisms. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 27, 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitnick, S., Spicer, G. S., and Markow, T. A. (1995). How long is a giant sperm? Nature, 375, 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randerson, J. P. and Hurst, L. D. (1999). Small sperm, uniparental inheritance and selfish cytoplasmic elements: a comparison of two models. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 12, 1110–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randerson, J. P. and Hurst, L. D. (2001a). The uncertain evolution of the sexes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 16, 571–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randerson, J. P. and Hurst, L. D. (2001b). A comparative test of a theory for the evolution of anisogamy. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 268, 879–884.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Randerson, J. P. and Hurst, L. D. (2002), Survival and anisogamy: response. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 17, 358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roughgarden, J., Oishi, M., and Akcay, E. (2006). Reproductive social behavior: cooperative games to replace sexual selection. Science, 311, 965–969.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandefur, J. T. (1990). Discrete Dynamical Systems: Theory and Applications. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Scudo, F. M. (1967). The adaptive value of sexual dimorphism: i. Anisogamy. Evolution, 21, 285–291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, D. and Giraldeau, L. A. (1996). Mating tactics in external fertilizers when sperm is limited. Behavioral Ecology, 7, 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, L. W. (2001). Sperm Competition and its Evolutionary Consequences in the Insects. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, C. C. and Fretwell, S. D. (1974). The optimal balance between size and number of offspring. American Naturalist, 108, 499–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. L. (1979). Repeated copulation and sperm precedence: paternity assurance for a male brooding water bug. Science, 205, 1029–1031.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, R. L. (editor) (1984). Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Animal Mating Systems. London: Academic Press.
Snook, R. R. (2005). Sperm in competition: not playing by the numbers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20, 46–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stockley, P., Gage, M. J. G., Parker, G. A., and Møller, A. P. (1997). Sperm competition in fishes: the evolution of testis size and ejaculate characteristics. American Naturalist, 149, 933–954.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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., Cox, P. A., and Bartelt, J. (2007). Underwater fertilization dynamics of marine green algae. Mathematical Biosciences, 208, 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Togashi, T., Motomura, T., and Ichimura, T. (1998). Gamete dimorphism in Bryopsis plumosa. Phototaxis, gamete motility and pheromonal attraction. Botanica Marina, 41, 257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Togashi, T., Motomura, T., Ichimura, T., and Cox, P. A. (1999). Gametic behavior in a marine green alga, Monostroma angicava: an effect of phototaxis on mating efficiency. Sexual Plant Reproduction, 12, 158–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Togashi, T., Nagisa, M., Miyazaki, T., et al. (2008). Effects of gamete behavior and density on fertilization success in marine green algae: insights from three-dimensional numerical simulations. Aquatic Ecology, 42, 355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (editor), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871–1971. Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton, pp. 136–172.Google Scholar
Look, K. J., Dzyuba, B., Cliffe, A., Koldewey, H. J., and Holt, W. V. (2007). Dimorphic sperm and the unlikely route to fertilisation in the yellow seahorse. Journal of Experimental Biology, 210, 432–437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vance, R. R. (1973). On reproductive strategies in marine bottom invertebrates. American Naturalist, 107, 339–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, L. (1976). Genetic aspects of sexuality in Volvocales. In Lewin, R. A. (editor), The Genetics of Algae. Oxford:Blackwell Scientific, pp. 174–197.Google Scholar
Wiese, L. (1981). On the evolution of anisogamy from isogamous monoecy and on the origin of sex. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 89, 573–580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiese, L., Wiese, W., and Edwards, D. A. (1979). Inducible anisogamy and the evolution of oogamy from isogamy. Annals of Botany, 44, 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yund, P. O. (2000). How severe is sperm limitation in natural populations of marine freespawners? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15, 10–13.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
×