Skip to main content
Log in

The origin and evolution of sexual reproduction up to the evolution of the male-female phenomenon

  • Published:
Acta Biotheoretica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Sexual reproduction is a composite, not a singular, phenomenon and as such can be subdivided into a number of componentsi.e. fusion, recombination, fission, and the male-female phenomenon. These components can evolve independently, though any evolutionary change in one component is likely to influence the future evolution of the other components. The ambiguity that surrounds the term ‘sex’ due to a failure to recognise the composite nature of sexual reproduction has led to considerable confusion in past discussions of the evolution of the phenomenon. This paper considers the possible chronological interaction of the components of sexual reproduction both with each other and with the sequence of selective pressures that seem likely to have acted. This chronological approach is used to consider: the origin of sexual reproduction; the evolution of sexual reproduction in the common ancestor of the procaryotes and eucaryotes; the modification of the ancestral system in the procaryote line following the procaryote-eucaryote dichotomy; and the modification of the ancestral system in the eucaryote line up to the origin of the male-female phenomenon.

It is suggested that the fusion and recombination of the first living organisms were chronological continuations of the fusion and recombination of complex organic molecules that led up to the origin of life. The evolution of the third major component of sexual reproductioni.e. fission (replication), by definition coincided with the origin of life. Initial selection on the components of sexual reproduction are likely to have been related to the optimum manifestations of size, complexity, diversity, multiplication, and distribution. Resultant early evolutionary trends are likely to have been: selective fusion between more-similar organisms; increase in number of fissions per fusion; and less recombination.

The procaryote-eucaryote dichotomy is argued to have evolved in response to the increasing cellular problems of packing and replicating an increasing amount of hereditary material. The evolution of a single circular hereditary organelle in the procaryote line is argued to have led to the loss of total fusion and the specialisation of individuals into either donors or recipients. The donor-recipient phenomenon of procaryotes is directly analogous to the male-female phenomenon of eucaryotes and leads to parallel evolution due to sexual selection in both groups. In the eucaryote line the ancestral mechanism of sexual reproduction is argued to have persisted through, but to have been greatly modified by, the evolution of complex machinery (mitotic/meiotic) for the handling of multiple hereditary organelles at cell division and reduction division. The evolutionary modification of the ancestral system of sexual reproduction is suggested to have led in eucaryotes to the evolution of: the species phenomenon; allelic recombination; and the male-female phenomenon.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bernal, J. D. (1967). The origin of life.-Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodmer, W. F. (1970). The evolutionary significance of recombination in the Procaryota. Organisation and control in procaryotic and eucaryotic cells, 20th Symposium of the society for general microbiology.-Cambridge University Press.

  • Boyden, A. A. (1953), Comparative evolution with special reference to primitive mechanisms.-Evolution7, 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvin, M. (1969). Chemical evolution.-Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A. (1964). Transduction.in:Gunsalus, I. C. &Stanier, R. Y. (eds), Bacteria, Vol. V, Heredity, 49–86.-Academic Press, New York & London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. B. (1964). Dynamics in metazoan evolution.-Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1969). Why so many sperms? An essay on the arithmetic of reproduction.-Sci. Prog., Oxford,57, 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow, J. F. &Kimura, M. (1969). Evolution in sexual and asexual populations: a reply.-Amer. Natur.,103, 89–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLong, R. (1967). On sexuality in bacteria.-J. theor. Biol.16, 333–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, E. C. (1955). The origin of sexuality.-Syst. Zool.4, 145–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driskell-Zamenhof, P. (1964). Bacterial episomes.In:Gunsalus, I. C. &Stanier, R. Y. (eds), Bacteria, Vol. V, Heredity, 155–222.-Academic Press, New York & London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erlich, P. R. &Holm, R. W. (1963). The process of evolution.-McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer-Fantuzzi, L. &DiGirolamo, M. (1961). Triparental mating inEschenchia coli.-Genetics,46, 1305–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. A. (1930), The genetical theory of natural selection.-Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fong, P. (1967). Packing of the DNA molecule.-J. theor. Biol.15, 230–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, H. J. &Tippo, O. (1949). College botany.-Henry Holt & Co., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, J. D. (1964). Conjugation in bacteria.In:Gunsalus, I. C. &Stanier, R. Y. (eds), Bacteria. Vol. V, Heredity. 1–48.-Academic Press, New York & London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. D. (1967). Extraordinary sex ratios.-Science,156, 477–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W. (1950). Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik.- Deutscher Zentralverlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinton, H. E. (1948). A synopsis of the genusTribolium Macleay, with some remarks on the evolution of its species-groups (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae).-Bull. Entomol. Research39, 13–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (1968). Reversible suspension of metabolism and the origin of life.-Proc. Roy. Soc. (B)171, 43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • - (1971). Reversible suspension of metabolism.-De la physique théorique à la biologie,C.N.R.S. 69–89.

  • — &Blum, M. S. (1965). Suspended animation and the origin of life.-New Scientist.28, 270–1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutner, S. H. &Provasoli, L. (1951). The phytoflagellates.In: Biochemistry and physiology of Protozoa, Vol. 1.-Academic Press, New York & London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leedale, G. F. (1968). The nucleus inEuglena.In:Buteow, D. E. (ed.) The biology ofEuglena. Vol. I General biology and ultrastructure. 185–243.- Academic Press, New & York London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luria, S. (1953). General virology.-John Wiley & Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margulis, L. (1970). The origin of eucaryotic cells.-Yale University Press, Newhaven & London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard-Smith, J. (1971). What use is sex?-J. theor. Biol.30, 319–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (1963). Animal species and evolution.-Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oparin, A. I. (1961). Life: its nature, origin, and development.-Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh & London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, G. A. (1970a). Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequences in the insects.-Biol, Rev.45, 525–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (1970b). Sperm competition and its evolutionary effect on copula duration in the fly,Scatophaga stercoraria.-J. Insect Physiol.16, 1301–1328.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,Baker, R. R., &Smith, V. G. F. (1972). The origin and evolution of gamete dimorphism and the male-female phenomenon.-J. theor. Biol.36, 529–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pringsheim, E. G. (1949). The relationship between bacteria and Myxophyceae.- Bact. Revs.13, 47–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, J. M. (1969). Evolution (2nd ed.)-Holt, Rinehart & Winston, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer, P. (1964). Transformation.In:Gunsalus, I. C. &Stanier, R. Y. (eds), Bacteria, Vol. V, Heredity, 87–154.-Academic Press, New York & London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sermonti, G. &Hopwood, D. A. (1964). Genetic recombination inStreptomyces.In:Gunsalus, I. C. &Stanier, R. Y. (eds), Bacteria, Vol. V, Heredity, 223–52.-Academic Press, New York & London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. M. (1955). Cryptogamic botany, Vol. I, Algae and fungi.-McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanier, R. Y. (1964). Toward a definition of the bacteria.In:Gunsalus, I. C. &Stanier, R. Y. (eds), Bacteria, Vol. V, Heredity, 445–64.-Academic Press, New York & London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stebbins, G. L. (1960). The comparative evolution of genetic systems.In:Tax, S. (ed.) Evolution after Darwin, Vol. I, The evolution of life, 197–226.-University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, C. P., Merz, T. & Young, W. J. (1967). Cytogenetics.-Prentice-Hall International, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection.In:Campbell, B. (ed.) Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971.-Aldine, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection.-Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baker, R.R., Parker, G.A. The origin and evolution of sexual reproduction up to the evolution of the male-female phenomenon. Acta Biotheor 22, 49–77 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01601983

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01601983

Keywords

Navigation