g. Charlesworth, 2002; Sakai et al., 2006), gonochorism versus hermaphroditism in animals (Mank, Promislow & Avise, 2006; Avise & Mank, 2009), and different forms of hermaphroditism such as protogyny versus protandry (Allsop & West, 2003). Such analyses are all part of a broader evolutionary enterprise sometimes referred to as ‘phylogenetic character mapping’ or PCM (Avise, 2006). On the conceptual front, a major advance was the elaboration of a ‘sex allocation’

theory (Charnov, 1982) that uses fitness arguments to identify the optimal allocation of finite resources to male versus female functions in dual-sex individuals, Alvelestat ic50 given various ecological constraints and life-history trade-offs. Sex allocation theory has guided much of the evolutionary research on dual sexuality (West, Herre & Sheldon, 2000) and indeed

has been hailed as ‘a touchstone in the study of adaptation’ (Frank, 2002). Rather than being mutually exclusive, gonochorism (i.e. dioecy) and hermaphroditism are merely signposts along a continuum of sexual systems. For example, many plant species NVP-AUY922 mouse and a few invertebrate animals consist of mixtures of dual-sex and unisex individuals, with the unisex specimens being males and females, respectively, in species that by definition are androdioecious or gynodioecious. Furthermore, the frequencies of both cosexual and unisexual individuals in dual-sex species

MCE公司 can vary from rare to common. A few plant populations are even trioecious, consisting of mixtures of pure male, pure female and hermaphroditic individuals. For invertebrate animals, hermaphroditism probably is a derived condition both overall and in many lower-level taxa (Eppley & Jesson, 2008), whereas the reverse trend prevails in plants where hermaphroditism often is the ancestral state from which dioecy has evolved on many separate occasions (Donoghue, 1989). Thus, even as invertebrate biologists strive to identify selective forces that might promote the evolution of hermaphroditism, botanists have wrestled with the opposite dilemma first posed by Darwin (1877): ‘There is much difficulty in understanding why hermaphroditic plants should ever have been rendered dioecious’. Darwin suggested that ‘if a species were subjected to unfavorable conditions … the production of the male and the female elements … might prove to be too great a strain on its powers, and the separation of the sexes would then be highly beneficial’. Aside from such ontogenetic challenges, botanists today also focus on dioecy’s potential selective advantages (Vamosi, Otto & Barrett, 2003), which include inbreeding avoidance because dioecy enforces outcrossing (Charlesworth & Charlesworth, 1987; Husband & Schemske, 1996).