Does social context influence male mating tactics in Drosophila melanogaster?

Social context, such as mate availability and perceived competition, can influence a male’s mating tactics. In Drosophila melanogaster most research has investigated how physical interactions and the perceived levels of sperm competition alter mating behaviour. I wanted to know if males would respond to the perceived social environments without the presence of physical interaction. Using a unique apparatus, I altered focal males’ social context by separating them physically from a social environment using a screen. Focal males were either in: (i) the presence of rival males and mates, (ii) the presence of potential mates only, (iii) isolation, or (iv) the presence of rival males only. I also manipulated the period the focal male was conditioned to a social environment to assess if the timing of cues is important. My findings suggest that the duration of acclimation alters male mating tactics. Regardless of social environment, the duration a male was conditioned influenced copulation latency. Males that were conditioned to their social environment for the duration of the experiment had differing copulation latencies between environments. Males held in isolation took longer to successfully court females, and transferred less sperm during mating then experimental males in the presence of rival males. Additionally, copulation duration correlated with the number of sperm transferred. Overall, my results suggest that the social environment and the perceived competition level affect mating strategies even without physical interactions. Since this apparatus may trick flies into believing they are a part of a social group, while controlling the male mating status, future work could examine behavioural, genetic and physiological phenotype effects of the social environment for both sexes.

No Easy Way Through: Black Workers and Race Leadership at the Nadir

It is difficult, even excruciating, to imagine the staggering descent from high optimism to despondency experienced by many African Americans who lived between emancipation and the dawn of the twentieth century. For historians living in the post–civil rights era, recapturing the scale, velocity, and brutality of that dramatic fall has been hampered by two conceptual problems. The first of these, undergirded by prominent trends in the formerly “new” social history, is a widely shared enthusiasm for illuminating those hidden corners of daily life where men and women on the receiving end of Jim Crow continued to wield a degree of control. “Agency” has been the buzzword for a generation of scholarship that emphasizes the staying power and persistence of black Southerners in the face of relentless assaults on their social and economic status, their civil rights, and even, at times, their collective existence. This is, in many ways, an understandable reaction to an earlier consensus that relegated black historical initiative to the margins of a national fable cleansed of unseemly violence and sharp social conflict, but it can also be problematic.