Cuticular hydrocarbons of Drosophila birchii and D-serrata: Identification and role in mate choice in D-serrata

The cuticular hydrocarbon compositions of two sympatric species of Australian Drosophila in the montium subgroup of the melanogaster group that use cuticular hydrocarbons in mate recognition have been characterized. Drosophila birchii has 34 components in greater than trace amounts, with a carbon number range of C-20 to C-33. Drosophila serrata has 21 components above trace level and a carbon number range of C-24 to C-31. These two species share eight hydrocarbon components, with all but two of them being monoenes. For both species, the (Z)-9-monoenes are the predominant positional isomer. The hydrocarbons of D. birchii are n-alkanes, n-alkenes (Z)-5-, (Z)-7-, (Z)-9-, and (Z)-11-), low to trace levels of homologous (Z,Z)-7,11- and (Z,Z)-9,13-dienes; and trace amounts of (Z,Z)-5,9- C-25:2, a major component of D. serrata. Only one methyl branched hydrocarbon was detected (2-methyl C-28), and it occurred at very low levels. The hydrocarbons of D. serrata are dominated by a homologous series of (Z,Z)-5,9-dienes, and notably, are characterized by the apparent absence of n-alkanes. Homologous series of (Z)-5-, (Z)-7-, and (Z)-9- alkenes are also present in D. serrata as well as 2-methyl alkanes. Drosophila serrata females display strong directional mate choice based on male cuticular hydrocarbons and prefer D. serrata males with higher relative abundances of the 2-methyl alkanes, but lower relative abundances of (Z,Z)-5,9- C-24:2 and (Z)-9-C-25:1.

Direction of Causation Modeling Between Cross-Sectional Measures of Parenting and Psychological Distress in Female Twins

Under certain conditions, cross-sectional analysis of cross-twin intertrait correlations can provide important information about the direction of causation (DOC) between two variables. A community-based sample of Australian female twins aged 18 to 45 years was mailed an extensive Health and Lifestyle Questionnaire (HLQ) that covered a wide range of personality and behavioral measures. Included were self-report measures of recent psychological distress and perceived childhood environment (PBI). Factor analysis of the PBI yielded three interpretable dimensions: Coldness, Overprotection, and Autonomy. Univariate analysis revealed that parental Overprotection and Autonomy were best explained by additive genetic, shared, and nonshared environmental effects (ACE), whereas the best-fitting model for PBI Coldness and the three measures of psychological distress (Depression, Phobic Anxiety, and Somatic Distress) included only additive genetic and nonshared environmental effects (AE). A common pathway model best explained the covariation between (1) the three PBI dimensions and (2) the three measures of psychological distress. DOC modeling between latent constructs of parenting and psychological distress revealed that a model which specified recollected parental behavior as the cause of psychological distress provided a better fit than a model which specified psychological distress as the cause of recollected parental behavior. Power analyses and limitations of the findings are discussed.