Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Genital Evolution: Why Are Females Still Understudied?
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, Centre for Gender Research.
2014 (English)In: PLoS biology, ISSN 1544-9173, E-ISSN 1545-7885, Vol. 12, no 5, e1001851- p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The diversity, variability, and apparent rapid evolution of animal genitalia are a vivid focus of research in evolutionary biology, and studies exploring genitalia have dramatically increased over the past decade. These studies, however, exhibit a strong male bias, which has worsened since 2000, despite the fact that this bias has been explicitly pointed out in the past. Early critics argued that previous investigators too often considered only males and their genitalia, while overlooking female genitalia or physiology. Our analysis of the literature shows that overall this male bias has worsened with time. The degree of bias is not consistent between subdisciplines: studies of the lock-and-key hypothesis have been the most male focused, while studies of cryptic female choice usually consider both sexes. The degree of bias also differed across taxonomic groups, but did not associate with the ease of study of male and female genital characteristics. We argue that the persisting male bias in this field cannot solely be explained by anatomical sex differences influencing accessibility. Rather the bias reflects enduring assumptions about the dominant role of males in sex, and invariant female genitalia. New research highlights how rapidly female genital traits can evolve, and how complex coevolutionary dynamics between males and females can shape genital structures. We argue that understanding genital evolution is hampered by an outdated single-sex bias.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 12, no 5, e1001851- p.
National Category
Microbiology Gender Studies
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-228491DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001851ISI: 000336969200002OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-228491DiVA: diva2:734209
Available from: 2014-07-15 Created: 2014-07-15 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(788 kB)202 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 788 kBChecksum SHA-512
e8be26c7fed8c5a64959c671aaf58f9a2256abb29da198bc087e797e24346acc167ee527cdfeb38468e39da4fd6af2a1f056780e07c97b7c27cc3bc4be0574e1
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full text
By organisation
Centre for Gender Research
In the same journal
PLoS biology
MicrobiologyGender Studies

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 202 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 790 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf