DOI: 10.5061/dryad.kp826
title: Data from: "Alternative phenotypes within mating systems" in The evolution of insect mating systems

description: Insects were for a long time considered simple organisms with unvarying
 behavioural repertoires, incapable of complicated behavioural responses to
 changing environments and/or social conditions. However, nothing could be
 further from the truth; phenotypic plasticity is widespread in insect
 development, life history, physiology, and behaviour (Whitman and
 Ananthakrishnan 2009). Plastic responses to environmental and social
 conditions are actually central to the remarkable adaptability of insects,
 and have played a crucial role in their evolutionary histories (Moczek
 2010; Simpson et al. 2011). Moreover, phenotypic plasticity in insects is
 not merely restricted to simple responses in metabolism or activity to
 abiotic factors such as temperature, but can be extremely elaborate, an
 illuminating example of which is the learning ability of honeybees (Giurfa
 2007; Hammer and Menzel 1995; Menzel 1993; Menzel and Muller 1996). Insect
 mating systems are no exception to this pattern. This chapter explores the
 intrasexual variation in behaviours and morphologies found in insect
 mating systems. More specifically, we focus on the evolution of the
 alternative means by which individuals obtain fertilizations, generally
 referred to as ‘alternative mating tactics’, or ‘alternative mating
 phenotypes’ (AMPs). The first studies to describe what we can interpret
 today as cases of AMPs in insects date back to at least the 1930s (Salt
 1937), but it was only in the 1970s that the number of studies reporting
 this phenomenon started to accumulate. In 1983, when the classic examples
 of AMPs in digger bees and scorpionflies were reviewed by Thornhill and
 Alcock (1983), approximately 50 cases of AMPs in insects were already
 known, a number that has now surpassed the 200 mark. Here, we review the
 theoretical and empirical advances that have been made in this area since
 Thornhill and Alcock’s volume. We start by describing two illustrative
 systems in detail, gryllid field crickets and onthophagine dung beetles.
 These two groups were chosen because their reproductive biology is well
 known, and because the contrasting degrees of behavioural plasticity and
 morphological specialisation between alternative phenotypes in these two
 groups illustrate the diversity of AMPs that has evolved in insects. We
 then discuss the genetic models that have been proposed to account for the
 evolution and maintenance of such dimorphisms, before reviewing the
 occurrence of AMPs in insects more generally. Finally, we discuss the
 relatively limited evidence for AMPs in female insects, a somewhat new and
 very promising area for future research.
description: Buzatto et al -
 Alternative phenotypes within mating systems - literature
 reviewThis file contains the
 list of articles covered by our literature review on alternative mating
 phenotypes (AMP) in insects. For our classification of AMPs: they can be
 conditional (C) or mendelian (Mend, pure genetic polymorphism); fixed (F)
 or reversible (R). We also included whether male morphology determines
 (D), influences (I) or is irrelevant (Irr) for the mating behaviour
 employed by individuals; and whether there is morphological dimorphism (Y
 for yes, N for no) among individuals. ? indicates uncertainty, whereas
 lack of information is omitted. Our review is based on a search of the
 literature (through Web of Science) using the key-words ‘alternative’,
 ‘mating’, ‘reproductive’, ‘tactic(s)’, ‘strategy(ies)’, and combinations
 thereof. Even though we focused here only in mating phenotypes, and not on
 other features of insect reproduction (such as oviposition strategies, for
 instance), we still included ‘reproductive’ in our keywords because the
 usage of the term ‘alternative reproductive tactics/strategies’ in the
 literature often encompasses AMPs. However, some studies describe the sort
 of intraspecific variation in mating phenotypes that falls under the
 umbrella of AMPs, without using any of the key-words mentioned above, and
 have likely been missed. Moreover, to restrict our literature search to
 studies on insects, we also used the keywords ‘insect(s)’ and ‘Insecta’,
 and we might have missed studies that only treated their focal species by
 a common name. We therefore anticipate that our review is somewhat
 incomplete, and AMPs are probably even more widespread than currently
 recognized. We wouldn’t be surprised if they were the rule, rather than
 the exception, in insect mating systems. Our review covered a total of 353
 references, including journal articles and chapters in peer-reviewed
 books, published between 1934 and 2012.