The role of biotic interactions in shaping plant flowering phenology has long been controversial; plastic responses to the abiotic environment, limited precision of biological clocks and inconsistency of selection pressures have generally been emphasized to explain phenological variation. However, part of this variation is heritable and selection analyses show that biotic interactions can modulate selection on flowering phenology. Our review of the literature indicates that pollinators tend to favour peak or earlier flowering, whereas pre-dispersal seed predators tend to favour off-peak or later flowering. However, effects strongly vary among study systems. To understand such variation, future studies should address the impact of mutualist and antagonist dispersal ability, ecological specialization, and habitat and plant population characteristics. Here, we outline future directions to study how such interactions shape flowering phenology. IntroductionFor plant reproduction, timing is everything. An individual plant that flowers too early, before it has had time to accumulate sufficient material resources, will have a limited capacity for seed production. One that delays flowering might gain higher capacity, but might also run out of time to use it before the end of the season. Flowering phenology is affected by many environmental factors, among which temperature and photoperiod, which are reliable signals of seasons, are probably the best studied. Accurate detection of such environmental cues and the resulting plastic response of plants enable flowering to occur when climatic conditions are most suitable for reproduction. Thus, resources and conditions impose bottom-up selective forces on phenology.By contrast, top-down forces act on reproductive timing, particularly those imposed by mutualists (pollinators and seed dispersers) and antagonists (floral pathogens and predispersal seed predators). Here, we review recent progress in understanding some of the top-down selective forces that act on reproductive timing. We highlight what is known,

Self-promoting elements (also called ultraselfish genes, selfish genes, or selfish genetic elements) are vertically transmitted genetic entities that manipulate their "host" so as to promote their own spread, usually at a cost to other genes within the genome. Examples of such elements include meiotic drive genes and cytoplasmic sex ratio distorters. The spread of a self-promoting element creates the context for the spread of a suppressor acting within the same genome. We may thus say that a genetic conflict exists between different components of the same genome. Here we investigate the properties of such conflicts. First we consider the potential diversity of genomic conflicts and show that every genetic system has potential conflicts. This is followed by analysis of the logic of conflicts. Just as Evolutionarily Stable Strategy (ESS) terminology provides a short cut for discussion of much in behavioral ecology, so the language of modifier analysis provides a useful terminology on which to base discussions of conflicts. After defining genetic conflict, we provide a general analysis of the conflicting parties, and note a distinction between competing and conflicting genes. We then provide a taxonomy of possible short- and long-term outcomes of conflicts, noting that potential conflict in an unconstrained system can never be removed, and that the course of evolution owing to conflict is often unpredictable. The latter is most particularly true for strong conflicts in which suppressors may take surprising forms. The possibility of extended conflicts in the form of "arms races" between element and suppressor is illustrated. The peculiar redundancy of these systems is one possible trace of conflict, and others are discussed. That homologous conflicts may find highly different expression is discussed by referring to the mechanistic differences that are thought to underlie the action of the two best-described meiotic drive genes, and by the multiplicity of forms of cytoplasmic sex ratio distorters. The theoretical analysis establishes a logical basis for thinking about conflicts, but fails to establish the importance of conflict in evolution. We illustrate this contentious issue through consideration of some phenomena for whose evolution conflict has been proposed as an important force: the evolution of sex, sex determination, species, recombination, and uniparental inheritance of cytoplasmic genes. In general, it is proposed that conflict may be a central force in the evolution of genetic systems. We conclude that an analysis of conflict and its general importance in evolution is greatly aided by application of the concept of genetic power. We consider the possible components of genetic power and ask whether and how power evolves.

A sex-ratio distortion factor was found at high frequency in D. simulans strains from Seychelles and New Caledonia. This factor is poorly or not expressed within those strains which are resistant to it. Its presence was detected by crossing females from New Caledonia or the Seychelles with males from a different geographic origin. Most of the Fl males obtained produced an excess of females (up to 99%) in their progeny. The two strains are infected with Wolbachia, but these micro-organisms are not involved in the sex-ratio distortion. The sex-ratio factor is shown to be an X-linked meiotic driver; nuclear resistance factor(s) act by suppressing the drive. It is likely that the same X-located driver invaded the two populations, which subsequently developed resistance factor(s) against it.