In many animal groups genital structures appear to have evolved extremely rapidly, prompting enduring interest in why this is so. Throughout this literature there remains a bias towards studying male genitalia; here we examine the extent of that bias and its possible causes.

Gender equality (GE) is something 'we cannot not want'. Indeed, the pursuit of equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities for all women and men throughout a society freed from gendered oppression is widely visible in recent organizational GE initiatives. In practice, however, GE initiatives often fail in challenging gendered norms and at effecting deep-seated change. In fact, GE measures tend to encounter resistance, with a gap between saying and doing. Using a GE project at a Swedish university, we examined the changing nature of reactions to GE objectives seeking to understand why gender inequality persists in academia. We used 'resistance' to identify multiple, complex reactions to the project, focusing on the discursive practices of GE. Focusing our contextual analysis on change and changes in reactions enabled a process-oriented analysis that revealed gaps where change is possible. Thus, we argue that studying change makes it possible to identify points in time where gendered discriminatory norms are more likely to occur. However, analysing discursive practices does not itself lead to change nor to action. Rather, demands for change must start with answering, in a collaborative way, what problem we are trying to solve when we start a new GE project, in order to be relevant to the specific context. Otherwise, GE risks being the captive of consensus politics and gender inequality will persist.

Mate choice hypotheses usually focus on trait variation of chosen individuals. Recently, mate choice studies have increasingly attended to the environmental circumstances affecting variation in choosers' behavior and choosers' traits. We reviewed the literature on phenotypic plasticity in mate choice with the goal of exploring whether phenotypic plasticity can be interpreted as individual flexibility in the context of the switch point theorem, SPT (Gowaty and Hubbell 2009). We found >3000 studies; 198 were empirical studies of within‐sex phenotypic plasticity, and sixteen showed no evidence of mate choice plasticity. Most studies reported changes from choosy to indiscriminate behavior of subjects. Investigators attributed changes to one or more causes including operational sex ratio, adult sex ratio, potential reproductive rate, predation risk, disease risk, chooser's mating experience, chooser's age, chooser's condition, or chooser's resources. The studies together indicate that “choosiness” of potential mates is environmentally and socially labile, that is, induced – not fixed – in “the choosy sex” with results consistent with choosers' intrinsic characteristics or their ecological circumstances mattering more to mate choice than the traits of potential mates. We show that plasticity‐associated variables factor into the simpler SPT variables. We propose that it is time to complete the move from questions about within‐sex plasticity in the choosy sex to between‐ and within‐individual flexibility in reproductive decision‐making of both sexes simultaneously. Currently, unanswered empirical questions are about the force of alternative constraints and opportunities as inducers of individual flexibility in reproductive decision‐making, and the ecological, social, and developmental sources of similarities and differences between individuals. To make progress, we need studies (1) of simultaneous and symmetric attention to individual mate preferences and subsequent behavior in both sexes, (2) controlled for within‐individual variation in choice behavior as demography changes, and which (3) report effects on fitness from movement of individual's switch points.

Evolution of male care is still poorly understood. Using phylogenetically matched‐pairs comparisons we tested for effects of territoriality and mating system on male care evolution in fish. All origins of male care were found in pair‐spawning species (with or without additional males such as sneakers) and none were found in group‐spawning species. However, excluding group spawners, male care originated equally often in pair‐spawning species with additional males as in strict pair‐spawning species. Evolution of male care was also significantly related to territoriality. Yet, most pair‐spawning taxa with male care are also territorial, making their relative influence difficult to separate. Furthermore, territoriality also occurs in group‐spawning species. Hence, territoriality is not sufficient for male care to evolve. Rather, we argue that it is the combination of territoriality and pair spawning with sequential polygyny that favours the evolution of male care, and we discuss our results in relation to paternity assurance and sexual selection.

Due to the controversy surrounding incipient avian parental care, ancestral parental care systems were reconstructed in a phylogeny including major extant amniote lineages. Using two different resolutions for the basal avian branches, transitions between the states no care, female care, biparental care and male care were inferred for the most basal branches of the tree. Uniparental female care was inferred for the lineage to birds and crocodiles. Using a phylogeny where ratites and tinamous branch off early and an ordered character-state assumption, a transition to biparental care was inferred for the ancestor of birds. This ancestor could be any organism along the lineage leading from the crocodile-bird split up to modern birds, not necessarily the original bird. We discuss the support for alternative avian phylogenies and the homology in parental care between crocodiles and birds. We suggest that the phylogenetic pattern should be used as a starting point for a more detailed analysis of parental care systems in birds and their relatives.

No abstract

It is common to refer to all sorts of clear-cut differences between the sexes as something that is biologically almost inevitable. Although this does not reflect the status of evolutionary theory on sex determination and sexual dimorphism, it is probably a common view among evolutionary biologists as well, because of the impact of sexual selection theory. To get away from thinking about biological sex and traits associated with a particular sex as something static, it should be recognized that in an evolutionary perspective sex can be viewed as a reaction norm, with sex attributes being phenotypically plastic. Sex determination itself is fundamentally plastic, even when it is termed “genetic”. The phenotypic expression of traits that are statistically associated with a particular sex always has a plastic component. This plasticity allows for much more variation in the expression of traits according to sex and more overlap between the sexes than is typically acknowledged. Here we review the variation and frequency of evolutionary changes in sex, sex determination and sex roles and conclude that sex in an evolutionary time-frame is extremely variable. We draw on recent findings in sex determination mechanisms, empirical findings of morphology and behaviour as well as genetic and developmental models to explore the concept of sex as a reaction norm. From this point of view, sexual differences are not expected to generally fall into neat, discrete, pre-determined classes. It is important to acknowledge this variability in order to increase objectivity in evolutionary research.

No abstract