Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 471

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sexual conflict and speciation

Open access
Parker, G. A., Partridge, L.·1998·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

We review the significance of two forms of sexual conflict (different evolutionary interests of the two sexes) for genetic differentiation of populations and the evolution of reproductive isolation. Conflicting selection on the alleles at a single locus can occur in males and females if the sexes have different optima for a trait, and there are pleiotropic genetic correlations between the sexes for it. There will then be selection for sex limitation and hence sexual dimorphism. This sex limitation could break down in hybrids and reduce their fitness. Pleiotropic genetic correlations between the sexes could also affect the likelihood of mating in interpopulation encounters. Conflict can also occur between (sex–limited) loci that determine behaviour in males and those that determine behaviour in females. Reproductive isolation may occur by rapid coevolution of male trait and female mating preference. This would tend to generate assortative mating on secondary contact, hence promoting speciation. Sexual conflict resulting from sensory exploitation, polyspermy and the cost of mating could result in high levels of interpopulation mating. If females evolve resistance to male pre– and postmating manipulation, males from one population could be more successful with females from the other, because females would have evolved resistance to their own (but not to the allopatric) males. Between–locus sexual conflict could also occur as a result of confict between males and females of different populations over the production of unfit hybrids. We develop models which show that females are in general selected to resist such matings and males to persist, and this could have a bearing on both the initial level of interpopulation matings and the likelihood that reinforcement will occur. In effect, selection on males usually acts to promote gene flow and to restrict premating isolation, whereas selection on females usually acts in the reverse direction. We review theoretical models relevant to resolution of this conflict. The winning role depends on a balance between the ‘value of winning’ and ‘power’ (relating to contest or armament costs): the winning role is likely to correlate with high value of winning and low costs. Sperm–ovum (or sperm–female tract) conflicts (and their plant parallels) are likely to obey the same principles. Males may typically have higher values of winning, but it is difficult to quantify ‘power’, and females may often be able to resist mating more cheaply than males can force it. We tentatively predict that sexual conflict will typically result in a higher rate of speciation in ‘female–win’ clades, that females will be responsible for premating isolation through reinforcement, and that ‘female–win’ populations will be less genetically diverse.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.1998.0208

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 471

Metadata

Authors
Parker, G. A., & Partridge, L.
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Published
1998-02-28
Volume
353
Issue
1366
Pages
261-274
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2091835399
Cited by
471
References
2
FWCI
17.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sexual conflict and speciation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rstb.1998.0208
The paper
Parker, G. A., & Partridge, L. (1998). Sexual conflict and speciation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1998.0208

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.