Skip Navigation


Behavioral Ecology Advance Access originally published online on August 18, 2004
Behavioral Ecology 2005 16(1):145-152; doi:10.1093/beheco/arh141
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
16/1/145    most recent
arh141v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (15)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kelly, C. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Kelly, C. D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Behavioral Ecology vol. 16 no. 1 © International Society for Behavioral Ecology 2005; all rights reserved.

Allometry and sexual selection of male weaponry in Wellington tree weta, Hemideina crassidens

Clint D. Kelly

Department of Zoology, University of Toronto at Mississauga, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5L 1J7

Address correspondence to C.D. Kelly. E-mail: cdkelly{at}utm.utoronto.ca.

Both male and female Wellington tree weta, Hemideina crassidens, use cavities in trees as diurnal shelters. That these galleries are often limiting in nature offers males the opportunity to increase their reproductive success by monopolizing galleries and the females residing in them. Male H. crassidens, can mature at either the 8th, 9th, or 10th instar, whereas females mature at the 10th instar only, and male head (and mandible) size positively covaries with ultimate instar number. It has been suggested that males fight for control of galleries by using their enlarged mandibles as weapons, and males with larger mandibles control galleries with more females. In the present study, I present a statistical examination of sexual dimorphism, showing that traits related to head size are on average significantly larger in males, whereas traits related to body size are on average significantly larger in females. I tested three predictions addressing the hypothesis that sexual selection is driving megacephaly in male H. crassidens. First, as predicted, traits related to head size show a positive allometric relationship with body size in males but not in females. Second, adapting a novel statistical technique based on maximum likelihood and bootstrapping revealed that males, but not females, exhibit a multimodal distribution in head and body size traits. This is likely a consequence of males maturing at one of three instars, which results in positive covariance between the ultimate instar number and morphological traits. Third, as predicted, single adult males with larger heads reside in galleries housing larger groups of adult females.

Key words: allometry, harem success, sexual selection, tree weta, weaponry.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
C. D. Kelly
Sperm investment in relation to weapon size in a male trimorphic insect?
Behav. Ecol., September 1, 2008; 19(5): 1018 - 1024.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
V. K. Iyengar and B. D. Starks
Sexual selection in harems: male competition plays a larger role than female choice in an amphipod
Behav. Ecol., February 24, 2008; (2008) arn009v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
C. D. Kelly
Identifying a causal agent of sexual selection on weaponry in an insect
Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2008; 19(1): 184 - 192.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Behav EcolHome page
M. Mesterton-Gibbons and T. N. Sherratt
Victory displays: a game-theoretic analysis
Behav. Ecol., July 1, 2006; 17(4): 597 - 605.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.