You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Efficient Copulation and the Evolutionary Loss of the Avian Intromittent Organ
James V. Briskie and Robert Montgomerie
Journal of Avian Biology
Vol. 32, No. 2 (Jun., 2001), pp. 184-187
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3677665
Page Count: 4
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Female animals, Birds, Mating behavior, Species, Ova, Sexually transmitted diseases, Insemination, Spermatozoa, Handbooks, Predation
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
The absence of an intromittent organ (IO) in most species (>97%) of birds is an enigma: birds are the only terrestrial vertebrates in which insemination typically occurs without the use of an IO. In an earlier review, we evaluated six hypotheses to explain the loss of IOs among birds. We found some support for the influence of sperm competition and female choice, but other hypotheses (e.g. avoidance of sexually transmitted disease) could not be tested because of a lack of empirical data. Wesolowski (1999, J. Avian Biol. 30: 483-485) has criticised our female choice and sexually transmitted disease hypotheses as implausible and insufficient to explain the loss of the IO in birds. Instead, he proposes that IOs were lost to minimise the risk of predation (by shortening duration of copulation) and/or to increase the efficiency of sperm transfer. Here we respond to Wesolowski's (1999) criticisms and test his efficient copulation (EC) hypothesis with data on the duration of copulation in 243 species. Contrary to expectations from the EC hypothesis, copulation durations did not differ significantly between species with and without an IO. Thus we can reject the EC hypothesis as an explanation for the loss of IOs in birds.
Journal of Avian Biology © 2001 Nordic Society Oikos