Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Bohme (1976)
Das Paarungsverhalten der kanarischen Eidechsen (Sauria, Lacertidae) als systematisches MerkmalSalamandra, 12
D. Crews (1980)
Interrelationships Among Ecological, Behavioral, and Neuroendocrine Processes in the Reproductive Cycle of Anolis Carolinensis and Other ReptilesAdvances in The Study of Behavior, 11
L. Brower (1958)
Taxonomists Glossary of Genitalia in InsectsSystematic Biology, 7
D. Sharp
The comparative anatomy of the male genital tube in Coleoptera / by David Sharp and Frederick A. G. Muir.
D. Dewsbury (1982)
Ejaculate Cost and Male ChoiceThe American Naturalist, 119
R. Avery (1975)
Age‐structure and longevity of Common lizard (Lacerta vivipara) populationsJournal of Zoology, 176
Arnold (1981)
Estimating phylogenies at low taxonomic levelsZeitschrift für Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung, 19
E. Arnold (1973)
Relationships of the Palaearctic lizards assigned to the genera Lacerta, Algyroides and Psammodromus (Reptilia: Lacertidae)Bulletin of the British Museum, Natural History. Zoology, 25
Kitzler Kitzler (1940)
Die Paarungsbiologie einiger EidechsenZeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 4
Mertens Mertens (1950)
Über ReptilienbastardeSenckenbergiana Biologica, 31
Avery (1975a)
Clutch size and reproductive effort in the lizard Lacerta vivipara JaquinOecologia, 19
L. Higgins (1975)
The classification of European butterflies
Gabe Gabe, Saint‐Girons Saint‐Girons (1965)
Contribution à la morphologic comparée du cloaque et les glandes épidermoïdes de la région cloacale chez les lépidosauriensMémoires du Mustum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 33
Gauthier Gauthier (1966)
La reproduction chez Eremias (Mesalina) rubropunctata (Licht.) (Lacertidae). Les jeunes et leur croissanceBulletin de l'Institut Francois d'Afrique Noire, série A, 28
Weber Weber (1957)
Vergleichende Untersuchungen des Verhaltens von Smaragdeidechsen ( Lacerta viridis ), Maucrcidechsen ( L. muralis ) und Perleidechscn (L. lepida)Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 14
Rykena Rykena, Henke Henke (1978)
Bastardierung von Lacerta viridis und Lacerta agilis im TerrariumSalamandra, 14
Bischoff (1982)
Die innerartlichen Gliederung von Gallotia galloti (Duméril & Bibron, 1839) (Reptilia: Sauria: Lacertidae) aus Teneriffa, Kanarische InselnBonner Zoologische Beiträge, 33
T. Uzzell, I. Darevsky (1975)
Biochemical Evidence for the Hybrid Origin of the Parthenogenetic Species of the Lacerta saxicola Complex (Sauria: Lacertidae), with a Discussion of Some Ecological and Evolutionary Implications
E. Arnold (1986)
The hemipenis of lacertid lizards (Reptilia: Lacertidae): structure, variation and systematic implicationsJournal of Natural History, 20
Arnold (1983)
Osteology, genitalia and the relationships of Acanthodaclylus (Reptilia: Lacertidae)Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology, 44
Jeannel Jeannel (1955)
L'Édeage. Initiation aux recherches sur la systématique des coléoptéresPublications du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 16
A. Salvador (1982)
A revision of the lizards of the genus acanthodactylus sauria lacertidae, 16
Nettman Nettman, Rykena Rykena (1974)
Einc gelungene Kreuzung von Lacerta t. trilineata mit Lacerta v. viridis (Sauria, Lacertidae)Salamandra, 10
Arnold (1980)
The reptiles and amphibians of Dhofar, Southern ArabiaJournal of Oman Studies, Special Report No, 2
Mertens Mertens (1964)
Über Reptilienbastarde, IIISenckenbergiana Biologica, 45
D. Crews (1978)
Hemipenile Preference: Stimulus Control of Male Mounting Behavior in the Lizard Anolis carolinensisScience, 199
Bischoff (1973)
Lacertenbastarde IIZoologische Garten, Leipzig, 43
The structure of copulatory organs is used very widely in systematics, both for differentiating species and for working out relationships. Differences between taxa may arise from a variety of sources, including non‐homology, differences in other parts of the animal, direct selection on copulatory organs, development of physical isolating mechanisms and pleiotropic events. Physical isolating mechanisms seem likely to account for the abrupt differences, involving size, asymmetry and simplifications, that are useful in distinguishing very similar lacertid species. Although these differences usually seem to arise at the end of a speciation event they can simultaneously be the initiating mechanism in a second one. Copulatory organs appear to have high inherent stability, probably resulting from frequent location in strongly homoeostatic environments, single function, insensitivity to niche shift and inertia due to the need to conform to the genitalia of the opposite sex. This stability may be overridden at times by direct selection on the organs themselves or pleiotropic events. Such changes tend to be retained because efficiency in copulation depends not on any absolute genital architecture but on close conformity of the organs. It is the combination of relative stability and tangible input of varied change, which tends to be retained, that so often makes these structures good indicators of relationship.
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society – Oxford University Press
Published: Dec 1, 1986
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.