EVOLUTIONARY AESTHETICS AND SEXUAL SELECTION IN THE EVOLUTION OF ROCK ART AESTHETICS

This theoretical proposal applies evolutionary aesthetic, animal signalling and sexual selection to understand our artistic cognition, especially rock art aesthetics. Iconographic motifs, universally found in rock art, indicate which set of pre-artistic aesthetic psychological bias has been co-opted to catch the viewer`s attention. The co-evolutionary process of sexual selection could have shaped the design features of both rock art images and their aesthetic cognition by conferring mutual benefits on both producers, via manipulation, and receivers, via information extraction. We show some strategic techniques identified in rock art and art that indicate the occurrence of this co-evolution between producers and receivers.

Sexual Differences in the Behavior of the Harvestman Leiobunum vittatum (Opiliones, Sclerosomatidae) Towards Conspecific Cues

Preliminary observations of the harvestman Leiobunum vittatum found that individuals rub their bodies against the substrate, presenting the possibility of chemical marking. To determine whether or not L. vittatum individuals can detect substrate-borne chemical cues, we compared responses of L. vittatum males and females to substrate-borne male and female cues. We found that individuals of L. vittatum do respond to conspecific cues and that their responses are sex-specific. In response to substrate-borne conspecific cues, male L. vittatum spent more time, engaged in more scraping with their sensory legs I, and engaged in pedipalpal tapping more often in the presence versus absence of conspecific cues (male and female equally). Furthermore, in the presence of conspecific cues, males engaged in two behaviors never observed in females-(a) "fast approach" and (b) "jerking", the latter of which was never observed in the presence of cricket cues. In contrast to males, females did not spend more time on conspecific cues, but did spend more time tapping their pedipalps in the presence of male vs female cues, suggesting an ability to distinguish between them. A final experiment explored the possibility that females could discriminate among males of varying histories of agonistic interactions based upon their chemical cues. We found no support for this hypothesis. Our results demonstrate that L. vitattum do respond to conspecific cues, and introduce the possibility that intraspecific communication may be mediated in part by chemical cues.

Segmental dataset and whole body expression data do not support the hypothesis that non-random movement is an intrinsic property of Drosophila retrogenes

Background: Several studies in Drosophila have shown excessive movement of retrogenes from the X chromosome to autosomes, and that these genes are frequently expressed in the testis. This phenomenon has led to several hypotheses invoking natural selection as the process driving male-biased genes to the autosomes. Metta and Schlotterer (BMC Evol Biol 2010, 10:114) analyzed a set of retrogenes where the parental gene has been subsequently lost. They assumed that this class of retrogenes replaced the ancestral functions of the parental gene, and reported that these retrogenes, although mostly originating from movement out of the X chromosome, showed female-biased or unbiased expression. These observations led the authors to suggest that selective forces (such as meiotic sex chromosome inactivation and sexual antagonism) were not responsible for the observed pattern of retrogene movement out of the X chromosome. Results: We reanalyzed the dataset published by Metta and Schlotterer and found several issues that led us to a different conclusion. In particular, Metta and Schlotterer used a dataset combined with expression data in which significant sex-biased expression is not detectable. First, the authors used a segmental dataset where the genes selected for analysis were less testis-biased in expression than those that were excluded from the study. Second, sex-biased expression was defined by comparing male and female whole-body data and not the expression of these genes in gonadal tissues. This approach significantly reduces the probability of detecting sex-biased expressed genes, which explains why the vast majority of the genes analyzed (parental and retrogenes) were equally expressed in both males and females. Third, the female-biased expression observed by Metta and Schltterer is mostly found for parental genes located on the X chromosome, which is known to be enriched with genes with female-biased expression. Fourth, using additional gonad expression data, we found that autosomal genes analyzed by Metta and Schlotterer are less up regulated in ovaries and have higher chance to be expressed in meiotic cells of spermatogenesis when compared to X-linked genes. Conclusions: The criteria used to select retrogenes and the sex-biased expression data based on whole adult flies generated a segmental dataset of female-biased and unbiased expressed genes that was unable to detect the higher propensity of autosomal retrogenes to be expressed in males. Thus, there is no support for the authors' view that the movement of new retrogenes, which originated from X-linked parental genes, was not driven by selection. Therefore, selection-based genetic models remain the most parsimonious explanations for the observed chromosomal distribution of retrogenes.