Selective mating and eye pigmentation: an analysis of the visual component in the

Selective Mating and Eye Pigmentation: An Analysis of the Visual Component in the Courtship Behavior of Drosophila melanogaster Author(s): Kevin Connolly, Barrie Burnet, David Sewell Reviewed work(s): Source: Evolution, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Dec., 1969), pp. 548-559 Published by: Society for the Study of Evolution Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2406852 . Accessed: 04/03/2012 17:07
Your use ofthe JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate newforms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for the Study of Evolution is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Evolution.

http://www.jstor.org

SELECTIVE MATING AND EYE PIGMENTATION: AN ANALYSIS OF THE VISUAL COMPONENT IN THE COURTSHIP BEHAVIOR OF DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER
KEVIN CONNOLLY, BARRIE BURNET, ANDDAVID SEWELL

Departments of Psychology and Genetics, Universityof Sheffield, Sheffield, England Received April 16, 1969

have shown success; the greaterthe pigmentdensity A number investigations of that in competitive matingtests mutant the greaterthe matingsuccess. This is a interesting finding Drosopkila are at a disadvantagewhen particularly sinceit has competing withwild typeflies. Overlong been arguedthatvisionplays onlya minor timeintervals mutantgenesare either role in the courtshipof Drosophila melanothe it eliminatedor maintainedat a very low gaster(Spiethand Hsu, 1950), although influence thecourtship on frequency the population (Reed and has an important in other of and Underhill, 1956). of certain members themelanogasReed, 1948; Merrell 1968). Geer This disadvantageusuallybeen attrib- terspeciesgroup(Grossfield, has in on uted to a reduction fitness the part and Green (loc. cit.) showedthat the disof the mutantwhen competingfor the advantage suffered by the eye pigment was no longer present whenmatavailable food supply. Behavioris also a mutants is component fitness, there evidence ings were allowed to take place in total of and indicating that vision may alsoexhibited darkness, indicating that the disadvantage in is of by manymutant genotypes due to some be important thecourtship Drosophila In behavior.Reed melanogaster. noneof theinvestigations impairment their of mating eye have beenused,has the and Reed (1950) foundthat males from where mutants the sex linkedwhiteeye mutation(w) of behavior of the animals been observed, were at a con- matingsuccessbeingmeasured progeny by Drosophila melanogaster of to siderable disadvantage whenin competition analysisor by the dissection females the or with wild type males. Bastock (1956) determine presence absenceofsperm. Ewing and Manning (1967) in their demonstrated that the yellowmutant(y) in of genetics insects single ofD. melanogaster givesriseto maleswhich review behavior in of show a quantitativechange in the wing out a difficulty the interpretation of vibration element the courtship display. Geerand Green'sresults.They arguethat in bout althoughGeer and Green demonstrate a The slight reduction meanvibration betweenpigment in densityand being relationship lengths themutants of results their successit is notpossibleto attribute at a disadvantage. Petit (1959) found that mating showntheeyepigment wild type males had an advantage over thedisadvantage by solelyto that sensory wkiteeye and Bar eyed males in a com- mutants defect. An is petitivesituation,this she attributedto alternative hypothesis that the eye pigin produce some pleiotropic differences thewing vibration component ment mutations of the courtship display. Geer and Green effect in the animal's central nervous this (1962)...