Why are sperm so variable despite having a singular, critical function and an intimate relationship with fitness? A key to understanding the evolution of sperm morphology is identifying which traits enable sperm to be successful fertilizers. Several sperm traits (e.g., tail length, overall size) are implicated in sperm performance, but the benefits of these traits are likely to be highly context dependent. Here, we examined phenotypic selection on sperm morphology of a broadcast spawning tube worm (Galeolaria gemineoa). We conducted laboratory experiments to measure the relationship between average sperm morphology and relative fertilization success across a range of sperm environments that were designed to approximate the range of sperm concentrations and ages encountered by eggs in nature. We found that the strength and form of multivariate selection varied substantially across our environmental gradients. Sperm with long tails and small heads were favored in high-concentration environments, whereas sperm with long heads were favored at low concentrations and old ages. We suggest variation in the local fertilization environment and resulting differences in selection can preserve variability in sperm morphology both within and among males. Some of the most fundamental and enduring questions in evolutionary biology concern the evolution of gamete size and morphology (e.g., Kalmus 1932; Scudo 1967). The evolutionary forces shaping gamete morphology may be nuanced, complex, and are incompletely understood (see reviews by Randerson and Hurst 2001;Snook 2005). There has been a sustained and intense effort by theoreticians to model the evolution of anisogamy (small sperm and large eggs; Parker et al. 1972, Parker 1982Levitan 1993;Dusenbery 2000;Lehtonen and Kokko 2011), but the assumptions underlying these models have received less empirical attention. In particular, although it now seems clear that males that produce more sperm may often secure more fertilizations, the role of sperm quality has been less explored. Indeed, a recent focus on sperm quality has highlighted the importance of understanding the evolutionary forces that shape not only sperm size, but also fertilization performance and its morphological underpinnings (reviewed by Snook 2005).Although formal analyses of selection on sperm morphology are rare, one line of evidence to suggest an adaptive role for sperm morphology is the theoretical link between morphological traits (e.g., size and shape of sperm components) and sperm function, especially swimming speed (reviewed by Humphries et al. 2008).