Eberhard William G
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Escuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica, Ciudad Universitaria, Costa Rica.
Rev Biol Trop. 2002 Jun;50(2):485-505.
Female resistance behavior that occurs prior to intromission does not by itself imply forced copulation. Such behavior may function instead as a test of the male in order to favor some males over others, or to induce the male to desist. Thus, male persistence and forcefullness may sometimes be better described as persuasion rather than coercion. Under the persuasion hypothesis, the male only gains intromission due to an active response of the female. Under the coercion hypothesis, male and female are opposed in a physical battle which the female loses if copulation occurs. In species in which males are morphologically incapable of forcing intromission without active female cooperation (I argue here that this is probably a very common situation), data on the behavioral and ecological context in which resistance occurs can distinguish between the two possibilities. Partially congruent functions of resistance, seen from the female point of view, are female resistance to screen (male persuasion), and female resistance to avoid males non-selectively (male coercion). Sepsis flies illustrate these ideas. Females often struggle energetically in apparent attempts to dislodge mounted males and to prevent intromission, and males grasp females with powerful species-specific structures on their front legs and genitalia. This suggests the possibility of coerced intromission. But behavioral and morphological evidence demonstrate that active female cooperation occurs at the moment of intromission, and that males are probably dependent on this cooperation because they are not morphologically equipped to force their genitalia into those of an uncooperative female. Despite the impression from previous publications, male insects in general may seldom be able to achieve intromission by genitalic force. The species-specific forms of the grasping genitalia of male sepsis are probably not the result of an evolutionary arms race between coercive males and unselectively resistant females.
在插入前出现的雌性抵抗行为本身并不意味着强迫交配。相反,这种行为可能起到对雄性的测试作用,以便青睐某些雄性而非其他雄性,或者促使雄性停止行为。因此,雄性的坚持和强行行为有时更应被描述为劝说而非强制。在劝说假说下,雄性仅因雌性的积极反应而实现插入。在强制假说下,雄性和雌性处于一场体力对抗中,如果发生交配,雌性会输掉这场对抗。在那些雄性在形态上若无雌性积极配合就无法强行插入的物种中(我认为这可能是非常普遍的情况),关于抵抗行为发生时的行为和生态背景的数据能够区分这两种可能性。从雌性角度看,抵抗行为部分一致的功能是雌性为筛选(雄性的劝说)而进行的抵抗,以及雌性为非选择性地避开雄性(雄性的强制)而进行的抵抗。脓蝇说明了这些观点。雌性常常激烈挣扎,显然是试图摆脱趴在身上的雄性并阻止插入,而雄性则用前腿和生殖器上强大的物种特异性结构抓住雌性。这暗示了强制插入的可能性。但行为和形态学证据表明,在插入时刻雌性存在积极配合,而且雄性可能依赖这种配合,因为它们在形态上没有能力将生殖器强行插入不配合的雌性体内。尽管以往的出版物给人留下了这样的印象,但一般来说雄性昆虫很少能够通过生殖器的强制力实现插入。雄性脓蝇抓握生殖器的物种特异性形态可能并非强制雄性与非选择性抵抗雌性之间进化军备竞赛的结果。