It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Phenotypic variation is the raw material for selection that is ubiquitous for most traits in natural populations, yet the processes underlying phenotypic evolution or stasis often remain unclear. Here, we report phenotypic evolution in a mutant line of the butterfly Bicyclus anynana after outcrossing with the genetically polymorphic wild type population. The comet mutation modifies two phenotypic traits known to be under sexual selection in this butterfly: the dorsal forewing eyespots and the pheromone-producing structures. The original comet mutant line was inbred and remained phenotypically stable for at least seven years, but when outcrossed to the wild type population the outcrossed comet line surprisingly recovered the wild type phenotype within 8 generations at high (27 °C), but not at low (20 °C), developmental temperatures. Male mating success experiments then revealed that outcrossed comet males with the typical comet phenotype suffered from lower mating success, while mating success of outcrossed comet males resembling wild types was partially restored. We document a fortuitous case where the addition of genetic polymorphism around a spontaneous mutation could have allowed partial restoration of phenotypic robustness. We further argue that sexual selection through mate choice is likely the driving force leading to phenotypic robustness in our system.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
; Saenko, Suzanne 3 ; Allen, Cerisse E 4 ; Brakefield, Paul M 5 ; Visser, Bertanne 2 1 Evolutionary Ecology and Genetics group, Biodiversity Research Centre, Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium; Evolutionary Biology Group, Institute of Biology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
2 Evolutionary Ecology and Genetics group, Biodiversity Research Centre, Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
3 Evolutionary Biology Group, Institute of Biology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
4 Evolutionary Biology Group, Institute of Biology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands; Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA
5 Evolutionary Biology Group, Institute of Biology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands; Department of Zoology, University Museum of Zoology Cambridge, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom




