Males are simple creatures

Really? Which ones? I'm only familiar with the complementary sex determination for the Hymenoptera and the polygenic for the housefly.
 
No, fitness, by definition, is reproductive fitness. The more children one has - the more fit.
That has no bearing on the females selection of a mate. The female of the species is trying to determine which males carry the best genes to increase her offspring's chance of survival. As I said, choosing a male who survives and thrives despite some absurd impediment such as a giant tail is a marker for a male that is quite hardy, or fit.
 
geoff said:
Really? Which ones? I'm only familiar with the complementary sex determination for the Hymenoptera and the polygenic for the housefly.
Ah, just ran across a few over time - some bark beetles, I think?

(Some of which farm fungi, like ants and termites - the correlation between agricultural housekeeping and the simplified, dethroned, foreshortened, trivialized male can hardly be a coincidence)

But I was mainly just thinking of the Hymenoptera, which seems like "lots of insects" when one is typing fast.

As far as males being complex, there's always the platypus - XYXYXYXYXY, IIRC.
 
Interesting - yeah , I guess the Hymenoptera really are technically ZW - I'd always heard it described as Aa vs A0 and a0. But they produce AA also, which get eaten (http://www.genome.org/cgi/reprint/gr.4695306v1). I wonder if it would be possible to differentiate male divergence from the quantitative genetics of the simplified haploid construction?

Darn...I can't really say more. Might be kind of a giveaway, and in light of some of the types on the forums, it's safer that I keep my anonymity. As it is, I'm leaving shorty anyway but it kind of sucks that I can't discuss anything job-related.
 
Back
Top