THE GENETIC BASIS OF SEXUAL ISOLATION BETWEEN DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER AND D. SIMULANS. 1992

Philip Welbergen, and Folchert R van Dijken, and Wim Scharloo, and Wolfgang Köhler
Biometrics and Population Genetics, University of Giessen, Giessen, Federal Republic of Germany.

The genetic analysis of sexual isolation between the closely-related species Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans involved two experiments with no-choice tests. The efficiency of sexual isolation was measured by the frequency of courtship initiation and interspecific mating. We first surveyed the variation in sexual isolation between D. melanogaster strains and D. simulans strains of different geographic origin. Then, to investigate variation in sexual isolation within strains, we made F1 diallel sets of reciprocal crosses within strains of D. melanogaster and D. simulans. The F1 diallel progeny of one sex were paired with the opposite sex of the other species. The first experiment showed significant differences in the frequency of interspecific mating between geographic strains. There were more matings between D. simulans females and D. melanogaster males than between D. melanogaster females and D. simulans males. The second experiment uncovered that the male genotypes in the D. melanogaster diallel significantly differed in interspecific mating frequency, but not in courtship initiation frequency. The female genotypes in the D. simulans diallel were not significantly different in courtship initiation and interspecific mating frequency. Genetic analysis reveals that in D. melanogaster males sexual isolation was not affected by either maternal cytoplasmic effects, sex-linked effects, or epistatic interaction. The main genetic components were directional dominance and overdominance. The F1 males achieved more matings with D. simulans females than the inbred males. The genetic architecture of sexual isolation in D. melanogaster males argues for a history of weak or no selection for lower interspecific mating propensity. The behavioral causes of variation in sexual isolation between the two species are discussed.

UI MeSH Term Description Entries

Related Publications

Philip Welbergen, and Folchert R van Dijken, and Wim Scharloo, and Wolfgang Köhler
January 2019, Heredity,
Philip Welbergen, and Folchert R van Dijken, and Wim Scharloo, and Wolfgang Köhler
January 2000, Genetica,
Philip Welbergen, and Folchert R van Dijken, and Wim Scharloo, and Wolfgang Köhler
March 2004, Genetica,
Philip Welbergen, and Folchert R van Dijken, and Wim Scharloo, and Wolfgang Köhler
December 1990, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
Philip Welbergen, and Folchert R van Dijken, and Wim Scharloo, and Wolfgang Köhler
July 1993, Experientia,
Philip Welbergen, and Folchert R van Dijken, and Wim Scharloo, and Wolfgang Köhler
June 1995, Idengaku zasshi,
Philip Welbergen, and Folchert R van Dijken, and Wim Scharloo, and Wolfgang Köhler
July 2004, Genetics,
Philip Welbergen, and Folchert R van Dijken, and Wim Scharloo, and Wolfgang Köhler
January 1987, Genetique, selection, evolution,
Philip Welbergen, and Folchert R van Dijken, and Wim Scharloo, and Wolfgang Köhler
August 2014, Journal of evolutionary biology,
Philip Welbergen, and Folchert R van Dijken, and Wim Scharloo, and Wolfgang Köhler
January 1998, Heredity,
Copied contents to your clipboard!