Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T06:06:49.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Geographical variation in house-fly (Musca domestica L.) sex determinants within the British Isles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

I. Denholm ,
M. G. Franco ,
P. G. Rubini  and
M. Vecchi
I. Denholm
Affiliation:
Department of Insecticides, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts. AL5 2JQ, England.
M. G. Franco
Affiliation:
Departimento di Biologia Animale, University of Pavia, P. Botta 9, 27100 Pavia, Italy.
P. G. Rubini
Affiliation:
Departimento di Biologia Animale, University of Pavia, P. Botta 9, 27100 Pavia, Italy.
M. Vecchi
Affiliation:
Departimento di Biologia Animale, University of Pavia, P. Botta 9, 27100 Pavia, Italy.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

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.

Genetic and cytological analyses of house-flies collected from 12 pig-breeding farms throughout the British Isles demonstrated that the non-standard sex determination mechanism prevailing in South-East England, involving a dominant female determinant (F) and virtual homozygosity for a male determinant on the X chromosome (Xm, both males and females morphologically XX), was not typical of the country as a whole. Instead there was a gradual decrease in the frequency of F, Xm and a rarer male determinant M III, and a concomitant increase in the standard male determining Y chromosome, on moving north, east and west of this region. Only the Scottish and probably the Irish populations were fully standard (XX females XY males), although one from the East Anglian coast in which non-standard determinants were rare was predominantly of this type. Populations from intermediate areas possessed complex multifactorial mechanisms in which Y, F Xm and M III coexisted. It is hypothesized that this radial cline in sex determinants, like the latitudinal cline known from mainland Europe, represents a transient polymorphism caused by the recent and continuing invasion of non-standard determinants into originally standard populations. The cause(s) of this apparently rapid evolutionary change, however, remain unclear.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , February 1986 , pp. 19 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

References

Bull, J. J. (1983). Evolution of Sex Determining Mechanisms, pp. 297. Menlo Park, California: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
Bull, J. J. & Charnov, E. L. (1977). Changes in the heterogametic mechanism of sex determination. Heredity 39, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denholm, I., Franco, M. G.Rubini, P. G. & Vecchi, M. (1983). Identification of a male determinant, on the X chromosome of housefly (Musca domestica L.) populations in South-East England. Genetical Research 42, 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farnham, A. W., O'Dell, K. E., Denholm, I. & Sawicki, R. M. (1984). Factors affecting resistance to insecticides in house-flies, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae). III. Relationship between the level of resistance to pyrethroids, control failure in the field and the frequency of gene kdr. Bulletin of Entomological Research 74, 581–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franco, M. G., Rubini, P. G. & Vecchi, M. (1982). Sex-determinants and their distribution in various populations of Musca domestica L. of Western Europe. Genetical Research 40, 279–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hiroyoshi, T. (1964). Sex limited inheritance and abnormal sex ratio in strains of the housefly. Genetics 50, 373–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hiroyoshi, T. (1980). Formal genetics of the housefly in relation to insecticide resistance. Paper presented at the 16th International Congress of Entomology, Kyoto, 1980. Abstract in Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Entomology 1, 397.Google Scholar
Hiroyoshi, T. & Fukumori, Y. (1977). On the IIIM-type houseflies frequently appeared in Japan. Japanese Journal of Genetics 52, 443 (Abstract in Japanese.)Google Scholar
Hiroyoshi, T. & Inoue, H. (1979). On the 1M -chromosome of the housefly. Japanese Journal of Genetics 54, 434 (Abstract in Japanese.)Google Scholar
Kerr, R. W. (1961). Inheritance of DDT-resistance involving the γ-chromosome in the housefly (Musca domestica L.). Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 14, 605–619.Google Scholar
McDonald, I. C., Overland, D. E., Leopold, R. A., DeGrugillier, M. E., Morgan, P. B. & Hoffman, H. C. (1975). Genetics of houseflies. Variability studies with North Dakota, Texas, and Florida populations. Journal of Heredity 66, 137–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milani, R. (1956). Recenti sviluppi delle ricerche genetiche sulla mosca domestica. Bollettino di Zoologia 23, 749–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milani, R. (1964). Considerazioni sulla genecologia e notizie sulla distribuzione delle mosche DDT-resistenti nella Provincia di Latina. Lavori Societa Italiana Biogeografia 7, 66–77.Google Scholar
Milani, R. (1967). The genetics of Musca domestica and of other muscoid flies. In Genetics of Insect Vectors of Disease (ed. Wright, J. W. and Pal, R.), pp. 315–369. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Milani, R. & Franco, M. G. (1959). Fertilita, rapporto sessi e segregazione del mutante bwb in incroci tra ceppi geograficamente separati di Musca domestica L. Symposia Genetica et Biologica Italica 6, 249–268.Google Scholar
Milani, R., Rubini, P. G. & Franco, M. G. (1967). Sex determination in the housefly. Genetica Agraria 21, 385–411.Google Scholar
Rubini, P. G. & Palenzona, D. (1967). Response to selection for high number of heterochromosomes in Musca domestica L. Genetica Agraria 21, 101–110.Google Scholar
Rubini, P. G., van Heemert, C. & Franco, M. G. (1977). Rapporto sessi anomalo in una popolazione naturale di Musca domestica L. e sue basi genetiche. Genetica Agraria 31, 21–38.Google Scholar
Rubini, P. G., Vecchi, M. & Franco, M. G. (1980). Mitotic recombination in Musca domestica L. and its influence on mosaicism, gynandromorphism and recombination in males. Genetical Research 35, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubini, P. G., Vecchi, M. & Franco, M. G. (1983). Recenti progressi nello studio dell variazioni dei determinanti sessuali in popolazioni naturali di Musca domestica L. Atti XIII Congresso Nazionale Italiano di Entomologia 1983 (Torino, Italy), 527–534.Google Scholar
Rubini, P. G., Vecchi, M. & Franco, M. G. (1984). Recente comparsa di un determinante maschile sul cromosoma X in popolazioni Italiane di Musca domestica L. Bollettino di Zoologia 51 (Suppl), 96.Google Scholar
Sullivan, R. L. (1961). Sex limitation of several loci in the housefly. Journal of Heredity 52, 282–286.Google Scholar
Tsukamoto, M., Shono, T. & Horio, M. (1980). Autosomal sex-determining system of the housefly: discovery of the first chromosomal male factor in Kitakyushu, Japan. Journal of University of Occupational and Environmental Health 2, 235–252.Google Scholar
Wagoner, D. E. (1969). Presence of male determining factors found on three autosomes in the housefly, Musca domestica L. Nature (Lond.) 233, 187–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar