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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
SPERM COMPETITION AND ITS EVOLUTIONARY CONSEQUENCES IN THE INSECTS
PARKER, G. A. (1970) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.1970.tb01176.x · Cited by 3,596
Self-citationSignals, Signal Conditions, and the Direction of Evolution
Endler, J. A. (1992) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/285308 · Cited by 1,960
Cited by
The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects
Arnqvist, G., & Nilsson, T. (2000) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1006/anbe.2000.1446 · Cited by 1,545
Sobel, J. M., Chen, G. F., Watt, L. R., & Schemske, D. W. (2010) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00877.x · Cited by 649
PERSPECTIVE: MODELS OF SPECIATION: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED IN 40 YEARS?
Gavrilets, S. (2003) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00233.x · Cited by 587
Sperm-Female Coevolution in Drosophila
Miller, G. T., & Pitnick, S. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1076968 · Cited by 455
The Evolution of Reversed Sexual Size Dimorphism in Hawks, Falcons and Owls: A Comparative Study
Krüger, O. (2005) · Evolutionary Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10682-005-0293-9 · Cited by 150
Metadata
- Authors
- Parker, G. A., & Partridge, L.
- Venue
- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- 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.