Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation
Page 22
—The Wall Street Journal
“Erasmus Darwin titillated eighteenth-century London with his poem ‘The Loves of Plants.’ He never knew the half of it. Dr. Tatiana knows how the other half loves, and it’s much kinkier than anybody imagined. Never has science seemed more like daytime television.”
—Matt Ridley, author of The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
“Whimsical, irreverent and illuminating … A most amusing and educative book on animal sex.”
—San Francisco Chronicle
“More positions than the Kama Sutra—but don’t try this at home!”
—Steve Jones, author of The Language of Genes: Solving the Mysteries of Our Genetic Past, Present and Future
“Long live Dr. Tatiana. Without her, what would creatures troubled by their bizarre sex lives do? … Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation is charming, hilarious and exhaustively researched.”
—Miami Herald
“Human? Lucky you! You rate a delightful romp through the weird, wild world of animal sex, with a guide who really knows the, um, ins and outs … . Count your blessings, primate. Then read, learn, enjoy.”
—Melvin J. Konner, author of The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit
“Move over, Ruth Westheimer and Joyce Brothers. Dr. Tatiana’s sex advice isn’t limited to the human lovelorn … . While the presentation is parodistic, the information Judson provides is a rigorous overview of the reasons different animals mate as they do and how their sex acts figure into the evolutionary process.”
—Science News
“A compilation of sex advice columns for lovelorn beetles, hyenas, and stickleback fish? You hold in your hands what is obviously a unique book. And also nutty, quirky, immensely entertaining, and wonderfully informative about the evolutionary biology of sex. A great read, even for someone as biologically mundane as a human.”
—Robert M. Sapolsky, author of A Primate’s Memoir
“Entertaining and enlightening.”
—Hartford Courant
“Who knew sex could be so much fun? But while you’re laughing and gasping at the kinky courtships of the bugs and other beasts Judson ‘advises,’ you’ll be painlessly absorbing a fascinating chunk of up-to-the-minute evolutionary biology”
—Barbara Ehrenreich, author of Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America
“A saucy treat … Tatiana’s message is one of being open to all the wonders of the natural world.”
—San Diego Union-Tribune
“Eye-popping, filthy, and funny. Dr. Tatiana has left no stone unturned in her long, hard stare at the copulatory world of brutes … . A masterpiece of nonfiction writing, it contains a dense variety of compelling scientific erudition presented with a combination of clarity, irony, and cheeky good humour that makes it wholly and refreshingly original.”
—Literary Review (London)
POSTSCRIPT
There’s time for a last question—one for the road, so to speak. And with apologies to all whose questions I haven’t answered, I thought I’d pose one that’s often on my own mind. We’ve seen that sex is central to evolution, that it generates fabulous diversity, that despite the trouble it causes, it’s something most of us can’t live without, that abstinence almost always leads to extinction. But how did sex begin?
Alas, we may never know for sure. After all, some sort of genetic exchange probably started soon after life appeared about four billion years ago—and looking that far back in time is an uncertain business at best. But there are lots of wacky ideas. Let’s take a quick glance at some of them.
Microbes not that different from modern bacteria seem to have evolved shortly after the origin of life, so it’s tempting to imagine that gene exchange among these primordial beasties proceeded much as it does now. But why did they start swapping genes in the first place? One idea is that gene exchange facilitated the repair of damaged DNA: an intact string of DNA received from a partner could perhaps be used to replace or repair genes that had broken. A second, more exotic idea is that sex was simply infectious. In other words, it arose because a segment of DNA promoted gene exchange in order to spread itself through the population. To use an analogy, it’s as though the common cold caused humans to be promiscuous—an effect that would clearly enhance its transmission. But although such a scenario sounds crazy, it may not be. One reason a modern bacterium will be moved to have sex is because it’s become infected with a particular segment of DNA known as the F plasmid. An individual who’s got the F plasmid is then driven to mate with an individual who hasn’t, and so spreads the sex habit around.
However speculative the origins of bacterial sex, though, the ideas look like a mighty edifice compared with how little we know about the origins of the sort of sex that humans, birds, bees, fleas, green algae, and other eukaryotes conduct. Remember: eukaryotic sex is a complicated process requiring that each parent donate one complete set of his or her genes. Probably it evolved only once. But exactly how or why is a deep mystery. Some say it arose as a result of cannibalism—one cell eats another and then collects its DNA. Others plump for DNA repair. And still others argue that this sort of sex, too, originated as a disease, with infectious genetic elements promoting their own spread.
I leave you with these thoughts. I hope that having seen the prodigious variety of sexual practices out there, you’ll be more tolerant of the predilections of others. Speaking for myself, my years as a sex adviser have definitely broadened my horizons; I now think that many more things are normal. Indeed, I must confess I envy some of you. (Who? Sorry, that’s a secret.) In any case, I hope I’ve helped you to put your problems in perspective—and above all to relax and have fun.
Wishing all of you—except the feisty Miss Philodina, of course—lots of great sex in the years ahead.
So long!
Dr. Tatiana
NOTES
Notes for each chapter are preceded by a list of the scientific names of species whose common names are given in the text. I have not included generic names, like goldfish, that refer to several species at once.
Chapter 1: A Sketch of the Battlefield
Stick insect Necroscia sparaxes
Idaho ground squirrel Spermophilus brunneus
Blue milkweed beetle Chrysochus cobaltinus
Alfalfa leaf-cutter bee Megachile rotundata
Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus
Gunnison’s prairie dog Cynomys gunnisoni
Sand lizard Lacerta agilis
Slippery dick Halichoeres bivattatus
Golden potto Arctocebus calabarensis
Dunnock Prunella modularis
Red-billed buffalo weaver Bubalornis niger
Gorilla Gorilla gorilla
Argentine lake duck Oxyura vittata
Honeybee Apis mellifera
House mouse Mus musculus
Fox squirrel Sciurus niger
Rat Rattus norvegicus
Sick of Sex in India
For sex marathons in stick insects, see Gangrade (1963). For mate guarding in the Idaho ground squirrel, see Sherman (1989); in the blue milkweed beetle, see Dickinson (1995). For the original statement of Bateman’s principle and for Bateman’s experiments, see Bateman (1948). For extra reasons that females should have as little sex as possible, see Daly (1978); for single mating in the alfalfa leaf-cutter bee, see Gerber and Klostermeyer (1970). For goldfish being drowned by frogs, see Boarder (1968). For enthusiasm for sex in Drosophila hydei, see Markow (1982); for increasing fertility with increasing numbers of mates in Drosophila melanogaster, see Pyle and Gromko (1978). For early recognition of problems with Bateman’s principle, see Gladstone (1979), Mason (1980), and Dewsbury (1982); for the notion that promiscuous females have “malfunctioned,” see Taylor (1967). Parker (1970) was among the first to recognize that females in some insect species may be routinely promiscuous, and the first to explore the consequences for males; however, he did not consider that sex could be be
neficial to females. For early recognition that females routinely benefit from multiple mating, see Ridley (1988). For higher rates of conception with multiple mating in rabbits, see Beatty (1960); in Gunnison’s prairie dogs, see Hoogland (1998); in sand lizards, see Olsson and Madsen (2001); in slippery dicks, see Petersen (1991).
Spooked in Gabon
For what little is known of the natural history of the golden potto, see Nowak (1999), pages 495–96; for the golden potto’s penis, see Hill (1953), pages 164–75; for general descriptions of primate penises, see Dixson (1998), chapter 9; for how the human penis compares, see Short (1979). For scouring in Calopteryx maculata, see Waage (1979); for persuasion in Calopteryx haemorrhoidalis asturica, see Córdoba-Aguilar (1999); for genitalia of Olceclostera seraphica, see Eberhard (1985), page 165; of termites, see Eberhard (1985), pages 126–27. For sperm sealing in ghost spider crabs, see Diesel (1990); for pecking in dunnocks, see Davies (1983). For the pseudophallus and copulation in buffalo weavers, see Winterbottom et al. (1999 and 2001). For penis complexity and female promiscuity in insects, see Arnqvist (1998); in primates, see Dixson (1998), chapter 9. For anecdotal reports of females having more orgasms in promiscuous species, see Dixson (1998), pages 131–36; note, however, that the function of spines on mammalian penises remains controversial. For the long and prickly penis of the lake duck, see McCracken (2000); for group structure in gorillas, see Robbins (1999).
Perplexed in Cloverhill
For the violent death of the male honeybee, see Gary (1963); for male numbers in swarms, see Page (1980); for number of queen flights, see Page (1986). David Tarpy told me of the number of mates of a honeybee queen. For benefits of multiple mating in honeybees, see Page (1980), Page (1986), and Tarpy and Page (2001); for the eating alive of infertile males, see Woyke (1963). Many thanks to David Tarpy, Robert Page, and J. Woyke for telling me of the plug-removal structure on the tip of the male phallus. For examples of chastity plugs in bats, see Matthews (1941); in worms, see Barker (1994); in snakes, see Devine (1975); in spiders, see Robinson (1982); in butterflies, see Dickinson and Rutowski (1989); in fruit flies, see Polak et al. (1998); in guinea pigs, see Martan and Shepherd (1976); in squirrels, see Koprowski (1992); in chimpanzees, see Tinklepaugh (1930). For plugs in rodents (including the tough plug of the house mouse), see Voss (1979). For plug removal by female fox squirrels, see Koprowski (1992); for gymnastics in the rat penis, see Wallach and Hart (1983).
Chapter 2: The Expense Is Damnable
Splendid fairy wren Malurus splendens
Yellow dung fly Scatophaga stercoraria
Seaweed pipefish Syngnathus schlegeli
Honeybee Apis mellifera
Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus
Roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans
Bulb mite Rhizoglyphus robini
Painter’s frog Discoglossus pictus
Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema triphyllum
Lemon tetra Hyphessobrycon pulchripinnis
Bluehead wrasse Thalassoma bifasciatum
Garter snake Thamnophis radix
Zebra finch Taeniopygia guttata
Blue crab Callinectes sapidus
Sheep Ovis aries
Adder Vipera berus
Lion Panthera leo
Rat Rattus norvegicus
Golden hamster Mesocricetus auratus
Cactus mouse Peromyscus eremicus
Crested tit Parus cristatus
Leopard Panthera pardus
Tiger Panthera tigris
Puma Puma concolor
Jaguar Panthera onca
Cheetah Acinonyx jubatus
Snow leopard Panthera uncia
Sand cat Felis margarita
Bobcat Lynx rufus
Tree ocelot Leopardus wiedii
Giant water bug Abedus herberti
Long-tailed dance fly Rhamphomyia longicauda
Scarlet-bodied wasp moth Cosmosoma myrodora
Mormon cricket Anabrus simplex
Bewildered Down Under
For general biology of splendid fairy wrens, see Russell and Rowley (1996); for their sperm counts, see Tuttle et al. (1996); for feather carrying, see Rowley and Russell (1990). For sperm numbers in humans, see Cohen (1971), and Harvey and May (1989). For pollination and differences in pollen production among fig species, see Kjellberg et al. (2001). For sperm and egg numbers in externally fertilizing fish, see Stockley et al. (1996). For the discovery of sperm competition, see Parker (1970); for the role of sperm competition in the evolution of sperm numbers, see Parker (1990a); for patterns of larger testes size and greater sperm numbers as a result of female promiscuity, see Møller (1989); for the experimental manipulation of sperm competition in yellow dung flies, see Hosken and Ward (2001). For sperm counts in the seaweed pipefish, see Watanabe et al. (2000). For early observations of high sperm death, see van Leeuwenhoek, cited in Cohen (1971). For the hypothesis that female reproductive tracts are a kind of obstacle course and for an overview of the hazards in humans, see Cohen (1971) and Birkhead et al. (1993); for sperm digestion, see Tompa (1984) and Michiels (1998); for ejection, see Morton and Glover (1974); for other types of sperm removal, see Hanlon and Messenger (1996), page 117. For sperm numbers and storage in honeybees, see Laidlaw and Page (1984). For acidity in the human vagina, see Masters and Johnson (1966), pages 88–100; Roger Short told me of lemons making good contraceptives. For white blood cells amassing at the cervix in rabbits, see Phillips and Mahler (1977); in humans, see Pandya and Cohen (1985) and Barratt et al. (1990). For sperm numbers reaching the oviducts of rabbits, see Cohen and Tyler (1980); of humans, see Ahlgren (1975). For infertile human sperm counts, see MacLeod and Gold (1951). For sperm numbers and sperm survival in the rabbit, see Morton and Glover (1974). For substances in semen that suppress the female immune system, see Mann and Lutwak-Mann (1981). For genetic testing of splendid fairy wren chicks, see Brooker et al. (1990).
Waiting for Sperm in Ohio
For sperm size in Drosophila bifurca, see Pitnick et al. (1995); in humans, see Dixson (1998), page 228. For evidence that sperm tend to be smaller and simpler in externally fertilizing species, see Franzén (1977). For tandem sperm in American opossums, see Moore (1992); in water beetles, see Mackie and Walker (1974); in millipedes, see Jamieson et al. (1999), page 281; in firebrats, see Dallai and Afzelius (1984); in marine snails, see Afzelius and Dallai (1983). For hooked sperm in koalas, see Hughes (1965); in rodents, see Roldan et al. (1992); in crickets, see Jamieson et al. (1999), chapter 9. For sperm that resemble flat discs in the protura, see Jamieson et al. (1999), page 73; Catherine wheels in crayfish, see Moses (1961); corkscrews in land snails, see Tompa (1984), page 120. For bearded sperm in termites, see Jamieson et al. (1999), page 134; for amoeboid sperm in roundworms, see Ward and Carrel (1979). For spermatophores in giant octopus, see Mann et al. (1966). For large-sperm advantage in roundworms, see LaMunyon and Ward (1998); in bulb mites, see Radwan (1996). For the general relationship between larger sperm and female promiscuity, see Gomendio and Roldan (1991) and Dixson (1993). For declining sperm numbers with increasing sperm size in fruit flies, see Pitnick (1996). For giant sperm in featherwing beetles, see Dybas and Dybas (1981) and Taylor et al. (1982); in back-swimming beetles, see Afzelius et al. (1976); in ostracods, see Lowndes (1935) and Gupta (1968); in ticks, see Rothschild (1961); in Hedleyella falconeri, see Thompson (1973); in the painter’s frog, see Afzelius et al. (1976); in fruit flies, see Pitnick et al. (1995). Peter Henderson told me of fighting ostracod sperm; see also Lowndes (1935). For big sperm having nothing to do with big eggs in fish, see Stockley et al. (1996); in fruit flies, compare egg sizes given in Atkinson (1979) with sperm sizes given in Pitnick et al. (1995). For the notion that giant sperm are a kind of present, see Bressac et al. (1994); for evidence against this, see Karr and Pitnick (1996). For giant sperm as chastity belts, see Ladle and Foster (1992), and for evidence that they may be used this way in featherwing beetles, see Dybas and Dybas (1981). Peter Henderson told me of ostracod sperm hav
ing to travel outside the female’s body to reach the eggs. For sperm size in Drosophila hydei, see Pitnick et al. (1995); for female mating habits and sperm mixing in this species, see Markow (1985). For general costs of making giant sperm in fruit flies, see Pitnick et al. (1995); for delay in sperm production and testes size in Drosophila bifurca, see Pitnick et al. (1995); for Drosophila pachea spending the first half of his adult life unable to reproduce, see Pitnick et al. (1995). Scott Pitnick told me of the lifespan of Drosophila bifurca.
Dried Up in London
For sterility in Drosophila melanogaster males, see Prowse and Partridge (1997); for Bateman’s ideas on sperm being unlimited, see Bateman (1948). For reviews of sperm limitation in marine organisms, see Levitan and Petersen (1995) and Yund (2000); for sponges spewing sperm, see Reiswig (1970). For pollinators preferring to eat pollen, see Bierzychudek (1987); for an overview of pollen limitation, see Burd (1994); for pollen limitation in jack-in-the-pulpit, see Bierzychudek (1981). For sperm limitation in the lemon tetra, see Nakatsuru and Kramer (1982); in the bluehead wrasse, see Shapiro et al. (1994) and Warner et al. (1995). For early comments on the costs of ejaculates, see Gladstone (1979), Baylis (1981), and Dewsbury (1982). For sexual exhaustion in garter snakes, see Ross and Crews (1977); for sperm depletion in zebra finches, see Birkhead et al. (1995). For sperm depletion in blue crabs, see Jivoff (1997); in rams, see Synnott et al. (1981). For supposed sperm reserves in rams and humans, see Møller (1989). For adders losing weight as a result of producing sperm, see Olsson et al. (1997). For sperm limitation, sperm production, and unfertilized eggs in C. elegans, see Ward and Carrel (1979); for the disadvantage of making more sperm, see Hodgkin and Barnes (1991) and Barker (1992). For sperm limitation in sea slugs, see, for example, Onchidoris fusca in Hadfield (1963) and Hermissenda crassicornis in Rutowski (1983); in aquatic snails, see Jarne et al. (1993); in sea hares, see Yusa (1996). For sperm depletion in Dugesia gonocephala, see Vreys and Michiels (1998); for Navanax inermis preferring the female role over the male role, see Leonard and Lukowiak (1985); for banana slugs gnawing off their own phallus, see Mead (1942). For temporary reductions in fertility in Drosophila melanogaster, see Markow et al. (1978); for permanent sterility, see Prowse and Partridge (1997); for female Drosophila preferring virgins, see Markow et al. (1978).