Cargando…
Genital Evolution: Why Are Females Still Understudied?
The diversity, variability, and apparent rapid evolution of animal genitalia are a vivid focus of research in evolutionary biology, and studies exploring genitalia have dramatically increased over the past decade. These studies, however, exhibit a strong male bias, which has worsened since 2000, des...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4011675/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24802812 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001851 |
_version_ | 1782314820961304576 |
---|---|
author | Ah-King, Malin Barron, Andrew B. Herberstein, Marie E. |
author_facet | Ah-King, Malin Barron, Andrew B. Herberstein, Marie E. |
author_sort | Ah-King, Malin |
collection | PubMed |
description | The diversity, variability, and apparent rapid evolution of animal genitalia are a vivid focus of research in evolutionary biology, and studies exploring genitalia have dramatically increased over the past decade. These studies, however, exhibit a strong male bias, which has worsened since 2000, despite the fact that this bias has been explicitly pointed out in the past. Early critics argued that previous investigators too often considered only males and their genitalia, while overlooking female genitalia or physiology. Our analysis of the literature shows that overall this male bias has worsened with time. The degree of bias is not consistent between subdisciplines: studies of the lock-and-key hypothesis have been the most male focused, while studies of cryptic female choice usually consider both sexes. The degree of bias also differed across taxonomic groups, but did not associate with the ease of study of male and female genital characteristics. We argue that the persisting male bias in this field cannot solely be explained by anatomical sex differences influencing accessibility. Rather the bias reflects enduring assumptions about the dominant role of males in sex, and invariant female genitalia. New research highlights how rapidly female genital traits can evolve, and how complex coevolutionary dynamics between males and females can shape genital structures. We argue that understanding genital evolution is hampered by an outdated single-sex bias. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4011675 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-40116752014-05-09 Genital Evolution: Why Are Females Still Understudied? Ah-King, Malin Barron, Andrew B. Herberstein, Marie E. PLoS Biol Perspective The diversity, variability, and apparent rapid evolution of animal genitalia are a vivid focus of research in evolutionary biology, and studies exploring genitalia have dramatically increased over the past decade. These studies, however, exhibit a strong male bias, which has worsened since 2000, despite the fact that this bias has been explicitly pointed out in the past. Early critics argued that previous investigators too often considered only males and their genitalia, while overlooking female genitalia or physiology. Our analysis of the literature shows that overall this male bias has worsened with time. The degree of bias is not consistent between subdisciplines: studies of the lock-and-key hypothesis have been the most male focused, while studies of cryptic female choice usually consider both sexes. The degree of bias also differed across taxonomic groups, but did not associate with the ease of study of male and female genital characteristics. We argue that the persisting male bias in this field cannot solely be explained by anatomical sex differences influencing accessibility. Rather the bias reflects enduring assumptions about the dominant role of males in sex, and invariant female genitalia. New research highlights how rapidly female genital traits can evolve, and how complex coevolutionary dynamics between males and females can shape genital structures. We argue that understanding genital evolution is hampered by an outdated single-sex bias. Public Library of Science 2014-05-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4011675/ /pubmed/24802812 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001851 Text en © 2014 Ah-King et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Perspective Ah-King, Malin Barron, Andrew B. Herberstein, Marie E. Genital Evolution: Why Are Females Still Understudied? |
title | Genital Evolution: Why Are Females Still Understudied? |
title_full | Genital Evolution: Why Are Females Still Understudied? |
title_fullStr | Genital Evolution: Why Are Females Still Understudied? |
title_full_unstemmed | Genital Evolution: Why Are Females Still Understudied? |
title_short | Genital Evolution: Why Are Females Still Understudied? |
title_sort | genital evolution: why are females still understudied? |
topic | Perspective |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4011675/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24802812 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001851 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ahkingmalin genitalevolutionwhyarefemalesstillunderstudied AT barronandrewb genitalevolutionwhyarefemalesstillunderstudied AT herbersteinmariee genitalevolutionwhyarefemalesstillunderstudied |