Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T09:21:39.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sex-limited Polymorphisms in Microevolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

P. M. Sheppard
P. M. Sheppard*
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool 3, United Kingdom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Theoretical objections to the hypothesis that polymorphisms are evolved as an adaptation by populations are discussed and upheld. Genetic data do not support the assumption that potency balance systems controlling polymorphisms are widespread in the Lepidoptera and are responsible for the prevalence of polymorphisms sex-limited to the female. It is pointed out that such polymorphisms are commoner in butterflies than in moths and that this requires an ecological, not a purely genetical, explanation. It is suggested that the presence of two potency balance systems in the genus Choristoneura could have resulted from an interchange of genetic material between the X-chromosome and an autosome during the evolution of the group.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 97 , Issue 4 , April 1965 , pp. 442 - 445
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beardmore, J. A., Dobzhansky, T. and Pavlovsky, O. A.. 1960. An attempt to compare the fitness of polymorphic and manomorphic experimental populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Heredity 14: 19–33.Google Scholar
Cain, A. J., and Sheppard, P. M.. 1954. The theory of adaptive polymorphism. Amer. Nat. 88: 321–326.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. 1958. Polymorphism and natural selection. J. Ecol. 46: 289–293.Google Scholar
Ford, E. B. 1937. Problems of heredity in the Lepidoptera. Biol. Rev. 12: 461–503.Google Scholar
Ford, E. B. 1945. Butterflies. Collins, London.Google Scholar
Ford, E. B. 1953. The genetics of polymorphism in the Lepidoptera. Advanc. Genet. 5: 43–87.Google Scholar
Ford, E. B. 1955. Moths. Collins, London.Google Scholar
Ford, E. B. 1964. Ecological Genetics. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Haldane, J. B. S. 1953. Animal populations and their regulation. New Biology 15: 9–24.Google Scholar
Kettlewell, H. B. D. 1958. A survey of the frequencies of Biston betularia (L.) (Lep.) and its melanic forms in Great Britain. Heredity 12: 51–72.Google Scholar
Mather, K. 1943. Polygenic inheritance and natural selection. Biol. Rev. 18: 32–64.Google Scholar
Remington, C. L. 1954. The genetics of Colias (Lepidoptera). Advanc. Genet. 6: 403–450.Google Scholar
Remington, C. L. 1958. Genetics of populations of Lepidoptera. Proc. 10th int. Congr. Ent. 2: 787–805.Google Scholar
Sheppard, P. M. 1959. The evolution of mimicry: a problem in ecology and genetics. Cold Spr. Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 24: 131–140.Google Scholar
Sheppard, P. M. 1961a. Some contributions to population genetics resulting from the study of the Lepidoptera. Advanc. Genet. 10: 165–216.Google Scholar
Sheppard, P. M. 1961b. Recent genetical work on polymorphic mimetic Papilios. Symp. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 1: 20–29.Google Scholar
Sheppard, P. M. 1963. Some genetic studies of Müllerian mimics in butterflies of the genus Heliconius. Zoologica 48: 145–154.Google Scholar
Stehr, G. 1955. Brown female – A sex-linked and sex-limited character. J. Hered. 46: 263–266.Google Scholar
Stehr, G. 1959. Hemolymph polymorphism in a moth and the nature sex-controlled inheritance. Evolution 13: 537–560.Google Scholar
White, M. J. D. 1954. Animal cytology and evolution. Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar