Table of Contents
ISRN Zoology
Volume 2011 (2011), Article ID 251925, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2011/251925
Research Article

Phylogenetic Evidence for the Gain and Loss of a Sexually Selected Trait in Sailfin Mollies

Department of Biological Sciences, Clemson University, 132 Long Hall, Clemson, SC 29634-0314, USA

Received 26 January 2011; Accepted 26 February 2011

Academic Editors: D. Russo, P. Scaps, and L. Vicente

Copyright © 2011 Margaret B. Ptacek et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. M. Andersson, Sexual Selection, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 1994.
  2. J. J. Wiens, “Widespread loss of sexually selected traits: how the peacock lost its spots,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 517–523, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. M. J. Ryan and A. Keddy-Hector, “Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases,” American Naturalist, vol. 139, pp. S4–S35, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. M. B. Ptacek, “The role of mating preferences in shaping interspecific divergence in mating signals in vertebrates,” Behavioural Processes, vol. 51, no. 1-3, pp. 111–134, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. G. P. Sætre, T. Moum, S. Bureš, M. Král, M. Adamjan, and J. Moreno, “A sexually selected character displacement in flycatchers reinforces premating isolation,” Nature, vol. 387, no. 6633, pp. 589–592, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. M. R. Morris, “Further examination of female preference for vertical bars in swordtails: preference for ‘no bars’ in a species without bars,” Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 53, pp. 56–63, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. S. C. Griffith, I. P. F. Owens, and T. Burke, “Female choice and annual reproductive success favour less-ornamented male house sparrows,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 266, no. 1421, pp. 765–770, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. M. R. Morris, J. A. Moretz, K. Farley, and P. Nicoletto, “The role of sexual selection in the loss of sexually selected traits in the swordtail fish Xiphophorus continens,” Animal Behaviour, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 1415–1424, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. N. W. Bailey, J. R. McNabb, and M. Zuk, “Preexisting behavior facilitated the loss of a sexual signal in the field cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus,” Behavioral Ecology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 202–207, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  10. R. M. Tinghitella and M. Zuk, “Asymmetric mating preferences accommodated the rapid evolutionary loss of a sexual signal,” Evolution, vol. 63, no. 8, pp. 2087–2098, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. K. J. Burns, “A phylogenetic perspective on the evolution of sexual dichromatism in tanagers (Thraupidae): the role of female versus male plumage,” Evolution, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1219–1224, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. J. J. Wiens, “Phylogenetic evidence for multiple losses of a sexually selected character in phrynosomatid lizards,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 266, no. 1428, pp. 1529–1535, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  13. R. T. Kimball, E. L. Braun, D. J. Ligon, V. Lucchini, and E. Randi, “A molecular phylogeny of the peacock-pheasants (Galliformes: Polyplectron spp.) indicates loss and reduction of ornamental traits and display behaviours,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 187–198, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. J. A. Farr, “Sexual selection and secondary sexual differentiation in poeciliids: determinants of male mating success and evolution of female choice,” in Ecology and Evolution of Livebearing Fishes (Poeciliidae), G. K. Meffe and F. F. Snelson Jr., Eds., pp. 91–123, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1989. View at Google Scholar
  15. M. B. Ptacek and F. Breden, “Phylogenetic relationships among the mollies (Poeciliidae: Poecilia: Mollienesia group) based on mitochondrial DNA sequences,” Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 53, pp. 64–81, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. J. Parzefall, “On comparative ethology of various Mollienesia species inclusive of a cave form of M. sphenops,” Behaviour, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1–38, 1969. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. J. Parzefall, “Sexual and aggressive behaviour in species hybrids of Poecilia mexicana and P. velifera: (Pices, Poeciliidae),” Ethology, vol. 82, pp. 101–115, 1989. View at Google Scholar
  18. J. A. Farr, J. Travis, and J. C. Trexler, “Behavioural allometry and interdemic variation in sexual behaviour of the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna (Pisces: Poeciliidae),” Animal Behaviour, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 497–509, 1986. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. A. Niemeitz, R. Kreutzfeldt, M. Schartl, J. Parzefall, and I. Schlupp, “Male mating behaviour of a molly, Poecilia latipunctata: a third host for the sperm-dependent Amazon molly, Poecilia formosa,” Acta Ethologica, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 45–49, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  20. M. B. Ptacek, M. J. Childress, and M. M. Kittell, “Characterizing the mating behaviours of the Tamesí molly, Poecilia latipunctata, a sailfin with shortfin morphology,” Animal Behaviour, vol. 70, no. 6, pp. 1339–1348, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. C. T. Regan, “A revision of the cyprinodont fishes of the subfamily Poeciliinae,” Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, vol. 11, pp. 977–1018, 1913. View at Google Scholar
  22. C. L. Hubbs, “Species and hybrids of Mollienesia,” Aquarium, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 263–268, 277, 1933. View at Google Scholar
  23. R. D. MacLaren, W. J. Rowland, and N. Morgan, “Female preferences for sailfin and body size in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna,” Ethology, vol. 110, no. 5, pp. 363–379, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. H. L. Kozak, L. A. Cirino, and M. B. Ptacek, “Female mating preferences for male morphological traits used in species and mate recognition in the Mexican sailfin mollies, Poecilia velifera and Poecilia petenensis,” Behavioral Ecology, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 463–474, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. M. B. Ptacek, “Interspecific mate choice in sailfin and shortfin species of mollies,” Animal Behaviour, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 1145–1154, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. M. J. Ryan, “Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences,” Science, vol. 281, no. 5385, pp. 1999–2003, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. J. A. Endler and A. L. Basolo, “Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 415–420, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. J. W. Boughman, “How sensory drive can promote speciation,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 17, no. 12, pp. 571–577, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. M. B. Ptacek and J. Travis, “Mate choice in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna,” Evolution, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1217–1231, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. C. Gabor, “Association patterns of sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna): alternative hypotheses,” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 333–340, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. C. R. Gabor and R. Page, “Female preference for large males in sailfin mollies, Poecilia latipinna: the importance of predation pressure and reproductive status,” Acta Ethologica, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 7–12, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. M. Pagel, “Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies: a general method for the comparative analysis of discrete characters,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 255, no. 1342, pp. 37–45, 1994. View at Google Scholar
  33. M. Pagel, “The maximum likelihood approach to reconstructing ancestral character states of discrete characters on phylogenies,” Systematic Biology, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 612–622, 1999. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. M. Schartl, B. Wilde, I. Schlupp, and J. Parzefall, “Evolutionary origin of a parthenoform, the Amazon molly Poecilia formosa, on the basis of a molecular genealogy,” Evolution, vol. 49, pp. 827–835, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  35. D. L. Swofford, PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (* and Other Methods), Beta Version 4.0b10, Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass, USA, 2002.
  36. D. Posada and K. A. Crandall, “MODELTEST: testing the model of DNA substitution,” Bioinformatics, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 817–818, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. D. Schluter, T. Price, A. Ø. Mooers, and D. Ludwig, “Likelihood of ancestor states in adaptive radiation,” Evolution, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1699–1711, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. M. Pagel, “Inferring evolutionary processes from phylogenies,” Zoologica Scripta, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 331–348, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. W. M. Fitch, “Toward defining the course of evolution: minimum change for a specific tree topology,” Systematic Zoology, vol. 20, pp. 406–416, 1971. View at Google Scholar
  40. D. L. Swofford and W. P. Maddison, “Parsimony, character-state reconstructions, and evolutionary inferences,” in Systematics, Historical Ecology, and North American Freshwater Fishes, R. C. Mayden, Ed., pp. 186–223, Standford University Press, Palo Alto, Calif, USA, 1992. View at Google Scholar
  41. D. R. Maddison, “Phylogenetic methods for inferring the evolutionary history and processes of change in discretely valued characters,” Annual Review of Entomology, vol. 39, pp. 267–292, 1994. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. D. L. Swofford, G. J. Olsen, P. J. Waddell, and D. M. Hillis, “Phylogenetic inference,” in Molecular Systematics, D. M. Hillis, C. Mortiz, and B. Mable, Eds., pp. 407–509, Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass, USA, 2nd edition, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  43. M. Nepokroeff, K. J. Sytsma, W. L. Wagner, and E. A. Zimmer, “Reconstructing ancestral patterns of colonization and dispersal in the Hawaiian understory tree genus Psychotria (Rubiaceae): a comparison of parsimony and likelihood approaches,” Systematic Biology, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 820–838, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. Z. Yang, S. Kumar, and M. Nei, “A new method of inference of ancestral nucleotide and amino acid sequences,” Genetics, vol. 141, no. 4, pp. 1641–1650, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. F. Breden, M. B. Ptacek, M. Rashed, D. Taphorn, and C. A. Figueiredo, “Molecular phylogeny of the live-bearing fish genus Poecilia (Cyprinodontiformes: Poeciliidae),” Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 95–104, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. R. J. Bischoff, J. L. Gould, and D. I. Rubenstein, “Tail size and female choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata),” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 253–255, 1985. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. M. D. Crapon de Caprona and M. J. Ryan, “Conspecific mate recognition in swordtails, Xiphophorus nigrensis and X. pygmaeus (Poeciliidae): olfactory and visual cues,” Animal Behaviour, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 290–296, 1990. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. J. A. Endler, “Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution,” American Naturalist, vol. 139, supplement, pp. S125–S153, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. M. Zuk and R. M. Tinghitella, “Rapid evolution and sexual signals,” in Sociobiology of Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, P. d'Ettorre and D. P. Hughes, Eds., pp. 139–155, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  50. R. Darnell, “Fishes of the Rio Tamesi and related coastal lagoons in east-central Mexico,” Publications of the Institute of Marine Sciences, vol. 8, pp. 299–365, 1962. View at Google Scholar
  51. R. R. Miller, “Checklist and key to the mollies of Mexico (Pisces: Poeciliidae: Poecilia, subgenus Mollienesia),” Copeia, vol. 1983, pp. 817–822, 1983. View at Google Scholar
  52. S. J. Hankison and M. B. Ptacek, “Within and between species variation in male mating behaviors in the Mexican sailfin mollies Poecilia velifera and P. petenensis,” Ethology, vol. 113, no. 8, pp. 802–812, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. J. J. Schmitter-Soto, Cátalogo de los Peces Continentals de Quintana Roo, ECOSUR: San Cristobal de Las Casas, Quintana Roo, Mexico, 1998.
  54. S. J. Hankison, M. J. Childress, J. J. Schmitter-Soto, and M. B. Ptacek, “Morphological divergence within and between the Mexican sailfin mollies, Poecilia velifera and Poecilia petenensis,” Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 1610–1630, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  55. K. D. Kallman, “Genetic control of size at maturity in Xiphophorus,” in Ecology and Evolution of Livebearing Fishes (Poeciliidae), G. K. Meffe and F. F. Snelson Jr., Eds., pp. 163–184, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1989. View at Google Scholar
  56. K. P. Lampert, C. Schmidt, P. Fischer et al., “Determination of onset of sexual maturation and mating behavior by melanocortin receptor 4 polymorphisms,” Current Biology, vol. 20, no. 19, pp. 1729–1734, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  57. J. Travis, “Size-dependent behavioral variation and its genetic control within and among populations,” in Quantitative Genetic Approaches to Animal Behavior, C. R. B. Boake, Ed., pp. 165–187, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill, USA, 1994. View at Google Scholar
  58. J. C. Trexler, J. Travis, and M. McManus, “Effects of habitat and body size on mortality rates of Poecilia latipinna,” Ecology, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 2224–2236, 1992. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. J. C. Trexler, R. C. Tempe, and J. Travis, “Size-selective predation of sailfin mollies by two species of heron,” Oikos, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 250–258, 1994. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. J. S. Balsano, E. J. Randle, E. M. Rasch, and P. J. Monaco, “Reproductive behavior and the maintenance of all-female Poecilia,” Environmental Biology of Fishes, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 251–263, 1985. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. A. D. Woodhead and N. Armstrong, “Aspects of the mating behaviour of male mollies (Poecilia spp.),” Journal of Fish Biology, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 593–601, 1985. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. J. A. Farr, “Social behavior patterns as determinants of reproductive success in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata Peters (Pisces: Poeciliidae). An experimental study of the effects of intermale competition, female choice, and sexual selection,” Behaviour, vol. 74, no. l-2, pp. 38–91, 1980. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. J. Travis and B. D. Woodward, “Social context and courtship flexibility in male sailfin mollies, Poecilia latipinna (Pisces: Poecillidae),” Animal Behaviour, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1001–1011, 1989. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. M. R. Morris, P. F. Nicoletto, and E. Hesselman, “A polymorphism in female preference for a polymorphic male trait in the swordtail fish Xiphophorus cortezi,” Animal Behaviour, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 45–52, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. Y. Iwasa and A. Pomiankowski, “Continual change in mate preferences,” Nature, vol. 377, no. 6548, pp. 420–422, 1995. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  66. R. A. Johnstone, “Multiple displays in animal communication:‘backup signals’ and ‘multiple messages’,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, vol. 351, no. 1337, pp. 329–338, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. M. J. Ryan, “Sexual selection, sensory systems, and sensory exploitation,” Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, vol. 7, pp. 157–195, 1990. View at Google Scholar
  68. G. G. Rosenthal and C. S. Evans, “Female preference for swords in Xiphophorus helleri reflects a bias for large apparent size,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 95, no. 8, pp. 4431–4436, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. R. Brooks and J. A. Endler, “Female guppies agree to differ: phenotypic and genetic variation in mate-choice behavior and the consequences for sexual selection,” Evolution, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 1644–1655, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. N. M. Kime, A. S. Rand, M. Kapfer, and M. J. Ryan, “Consistency of female choice in the tungara frog: a permissive preference for complex characters,” Animal Behaviour, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 641–649, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. M. J. Ryan and W. E. Wagner Jr., “Asymmetries in mating preferences between species: female swordtails prefer heterospecific males,” Science, vol. 236, no. 4801, pp. 595–597, 1987. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. M. J. Ryan and A. S. Rand, “Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication,” Evolution, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 647–657, 1993. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. A. T. Peterson, “Geographic variation in sexual dichromatism in birds,” Bulletin of the British Ornitholological Club, vol. 116, pp. 156–172, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  74. R. Lande, “Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 78, no. 6 I, pp. 3721–3725, 1981. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  75. D. E. Rosen, “A vicariance model of Caribbean biogeography,” Systematic Zoology, vol. 24, pp. 431–464, 1976. View at Google Scholar