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...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Malin Ah-King, Andrew B Barron, Marie E Herberstein
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2014
Materias:	Biology (General) QH301-705.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/093253b6952a41d795f5400d184a4d8e
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:093253b6952a41d795f5400d184a4d8e
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:093253b6952a41d795f5400d184a4d8e2021-11-18T05:37:28ZGenital evolution: why are females still understudied?1544-91731545-788510.1371/journal.pbio.1001851https://doaj.org/article/093253b6952a41d795f5400d184a4d8e2014-05-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24802812/pdf/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1544-9173https://doaj.org/toc/1545-7885The 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.Malin Ah-KingAndrew B BarronMarie E HerbersteinPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleBiology (General)QH301-705.5ENPLoS Biology, Vol 12, Iss 5, p e1001851 (2014)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Biology (General) QH301-705.5
spellingShingle	Biology (General) QH301-705.5 Malin Ah-King Andrew B Barron Marie E Herberstein Genital evolution: why are females still understudied?
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	article
author	Malin Ah-King Andrew B Barron Marie E Herberstein
author_facet	Malin Ah-King Andrew B Barron Marie E Herberstein
author_sort	Malin Ah-King
title	Genital evolution: why are females still understudied?
title_short	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_sort	genital evolution: why are females still understudied?
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2014
url	https://doaj.org/article/093253b6952a41d795f5400d184a4d8e
work_keys_str_mv	AT malinahking genitalevolutionwhyarefemalesstillunderstudied AT andrewbbarron genitalevolutionwhyarefemalesstillunderstudied AT marieeherberstein genitalevolutionwhyarefemalesstillunderstudied
_version_	1718424831165202432

Genital evolution: why are females still understudied?

Ejemplares similares