The extraordinary taxonomic and morphological diversity of orchids is accompanied by a remarkable range of pollinators and pollination systems. Sexually deceptive orchids are adapted to attract specific male insects that are fooled into attempting to mate with orchid flowers and inadvertently acting as pollinators. This review summarises current knowledge, explores new hypotheses in the literature, and introduces some new approaches to understanding sexual deception from the perspective of the duped pollinator. Four main topics are addressed: (1) global patterns in sexual deception, (2) pollinator identities, mating systems and behaviours, (3) pollinator perception of orchid deceptive signals, and (4) the evolutionary implications of pollinator responses to orchid deception, including potential costs imposed on pollinators by orchids. A global list of known and putative sexually deceptive orchids and their pollinators is provided and methods for incorporating pollinator perspectives into sexual deception research are provided and reviewed. At present, almost all known sexually deceptive orchid taxa are from Australia or Europe. A few sexually deceptive species and genera are reported for New Zealand and South Africa. In Central and Southern America, Asia, and the Pacific many more species are likely to be identified in the future. Despite the great diversity of sexually deceptive orchid genera in Australia, pollination rates reported in the literature are similar between Australian and European species. The typical pollinator of a sexually deceptive orchid is a male insect of a species that is polygynous, monandrous, haplodiploid, and solitary rather than social. Insect behaviours involved in the pollination of sexually deceptive orchids include pre-copulatory gripping of flowers, brief entrapment, mating, and very rarely, ejaculation. Pollinator behaviour varies within and among pollinator species. Deception involving orchid mimicry of insect scent signals is becoming well understood for some species, but visual and tactile signals such as colour, shape, and texture remain neglected. Experimental manipulations that test for function, multi-signal interactions, and pollinator perception of these signals are required. Furthermore, other forms of deception such as exploitation of pollinator sensory biases or mating preferences merit more comprehensive investigation. Application of molecular techniques adapted from model plants and animals is likely to deliver new insights into orchid signalling, and pollinator perception and behaviour. There is little current evidence that sexual deception drives any species-level selection on pollinators. Pollinators do learn to avoid deceptive orchids and their locations, but this is not necessarily a response specific to orchids. Even in systems where evidence suggests that orchids do interfere with pollinator mating opportunities, considerable further research is required to determine whether this is sufficient to impose selection on pollinators or generate antagonistic coevolu...

Spiders and their mating systems are useful study subjects with which to investigate questions of widespread interest about sexual selection, pre- and post-copulatory mate choice, sperm competition, mating strategies, and sexual conflict. Conclusions drawn from such studies are broadly applicable to a range of taxa, but rely on accurate understanding of spider sexual interactions. Extensive behavioural experimentation demonstrates the presence of sex pheromones in many spider species, and recent major advances in the identification of spider sex pheromones merit review. Synthesised here are the emission, transmission, structures, and functions of spider sex pheromones, with emphasis on the crucial and dynamic role of sex pheromones in female and male mating strategies generally. Techniques for behavioural, chemical and electrophysiological study are summarised, and I aim to provide guidelines for incorporating sex pheromones into future studies of spider mating. In the spiders, pheromones are generally emitted by females and received by males, but this pattern is not universal. Female spiders emit cuticular and/or silk-based sex pheromones, which can be airborne or received via contact with chemoreceptors on male pedipalps. Airborne pheromones primarily attract males or elicit male searching behaviour. Contact pheromones stimulate male courtship behaviour and provide specific information about the emitter's identity. Male spiders are generally choosy and are often most attracted to adult virgin females and juvenile females prior to their final moult. This suggests the first male to mate with a female has significant advantages, perhaps due to sperm priority patterns, or mated female disinterest. Both sexes may attempt to control female pheromone emission, and thus dictate the frequency and timing of female mating, reflecting the potentially different costs of female signalling and/or polyandry to both sexes. Spider sex pheromones are likely to be lipids or lipid soluble, may be closely related to primary metabolites, and are not necessarily species specific, although they can still assist with species recognition. Newer electrophysiological techniques coupled with chemical analyses assist with the identification of sex pheromone compounds. This provides opportunities for more targeted behavioural experimentation, perhaps with synthetic pheromones, and for theorising about the biosynthesis and evolution of chemical signals generally. Given the intriguing biology of spiders, and the critical role of chemical signals for spiders and many other animal taxa, a deeper understanding of spider sex pheromones should prove productive.

Niche construction theory explains how organisms' niche modifications may feed back to affect their evolutionary trajectories. In theory, the evolution of other species accessing the same modified niche may also be affected. We propose that this niche construction may be a general mechanism driving the evolution of mutualisms. Drosophilid flies benefit from accessing yeast-infested fruits, but the consequences of this interaction for yeasts are unknown. We reveal high levels of variation among strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in their ability to modify fruits and attract Drosophila simulans. More attractive yeasts are dispersed more frequently, both in the lab and in the field, and flies associated with more attractive yeasts have higher fecundity. Although there may be multiple natural yeast and fly species interactions, our controlled assays in the lab and field provide evidence of a mutualistic interaction, facilitated by the yeast's niche modification.

Yeasts that invade and colonise fruit significantly enhance the volatile chemical diversity of this ecosystem. These modified bouquets are thought to be more attractive to Drosophila flies than the fruit alone, but the variance of attraction in natural yeast populations is uncharacterised. Here we investigate how a range of yeast isolates affect the attraction of female D. melanogaster to fruit in a simple two choice assay comparing yeast to sterile fruit. Of the 43 yeast isolates examined, 33 were attractive and seven repellent to the flies. The results of isolate-versus-isolate comparisons provided the same relative rankings. Attractiveness varied significantly by yeast, with the strongly fermenting Saccharomyces species generally being more attractive than the mostly respiring non- Saccharomyces species (P = 0.0035). Overall the habitat (fruit or other) from which the isolates were directly sampled did not explain attraction (P = 0.2352). However, yeasts isolated from fruit associated niches were more attractive than those from non-fruit associated niches (P = 0.0188) regardless of taxonomic positioning. These data suggest that while attractiveness is primarily correlated with phylogenetic status, the ability to attract Drosophila is a labile trait among yeasts that is potentially associated with those inhabiting fruit ecosystems. Preliminary analysis of the volatiles emitted by four yeast isolates in grape juice show the presence/absence of ethanol and acetic acid were not likely explanations for the observed variation in attraction. These data demonstrate variation among yeasts for their ability to attract Drosophila in a pattern that is consistent with the hypothesis that certain yeasts are manipulating fruit odours to mediate interactions with their Drosophila dispersal agent.