| Title |
Evolution of genitalia: theories, evidence, and new directions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genetica, March 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10709-009-9358-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
William G. Eberhard |
| Abstract |
Many hypotheses have been proposed to explain why male intromittent genitalia consistently tend to diverge more rapidly than other body traits of the same individuals in a wide range of animal taxa. Currently the two most popular involve sexual selection: sexually antagonistic coevolution (SAC) and cryptic female choice (CFC). A review of the most extensive attempts to discriminate between these two hypotheses indicates that SAC is not likely to have played a major role in explaining this pattern of genital evolution. Promising lines for future, more direct tests of CFC include experimental modification of male genital form and female sensory abilities, analysis of possible male-female dialogues during copulation, and direct observations of genital behavior. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Czechia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 288 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 5 | 2% |
| United States | 3 | 1% |
| South Africa | 3 | 1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Hungary | 1 | <1% |
| Cuba | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 268 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 66 | 23% |
| Researcher | 48 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 39 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 38 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 7% |
| Other | 51 | 18% |
| Unknown | 25 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 211 | 73% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 16 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 7 | 2% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 1% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 9 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 October 2020.
All research outputs
#6,404,409
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from Genetica
#114
of 713 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,678
of 93,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetica
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 713 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 93,140 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.