ArticlePLoS biology2014
Genital evolution: why are females still understudied?
Article in PLoS biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 178 citations in OpenAlex.
- Structural colours reflect individual quality: a meta-analysis.Biology letters · 2020Pooled it
- Navigating the Semantic Labyrinth of "Sex" in the Study of Reproductive Trait Evolution.Integrative and comparative biology · 2026Article
- Parallels in the regulatory landscape of dimorphic female and male genital structures in Drosophila melanogaster.Genetics · 2026Article
- Experimental evidence that penis size, height, and body shape influence assessment of male sexual attractiveness and fighting ability in humans.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Relative testis size is associated with vagina length but not sperm storage traits in Galliformes.Evolution letters · 2025Article
- Scaling of ovipositor size in two species ofBiology letters · 2025Article
- Monogamy removes constraints on reproductive tissue investment imposed by intense sexual selection.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Correlated evolution of elaborate intromission mechanics during copulation between the sexes in leaf beetles.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025Article
- Female and male genital surface microstructures in shining leaf beetles (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Criocerinae).ZooKeys · 2025Article
- First description of the baubellum in the spectacled bear Tremarctos ornatus (Mammalia: Ursidae).Journal of anatomy · 2024Article
- Post-Copulatory Sexual Selection in an Insect With High Levels of Mating Failure.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Stimulatory Functions of Male Genitalia inInsects · 2024Article
- Coevolution between eggs and sperm of insects.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Rapid divergent evolution of internal female genitalia and the coevolution of male genital morphology revealed by micro-computed tomography.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Review of the Narrow-Banded Hawkmoth,Insects · 2023Article
- Resolving between novelty and homology in the rapidly evolving phallus of Drosophila.Journal of experimental zoology. Part B, Molecular and developmental evolution · 2023Article
- Where are all the egg genes?Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023Review
- Selection on sperm size in response to promiscuity and variation in female sperm storage organs.Journal of evolutionary biology · 2023Article
- Article
- First evidence of hemiclitores in snakes.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The diversity, variability, and apparent rapid evolution of animal genitalia are a vivid focus of research in evolutionary biology, and studies exploring genitalia have dramatically increased over the past decade. These studies, however, exhibit a strong male bias, which has worsened since 2000, despite the fact that this bias has been explicitly pointed out in the past. Early critics argued that previous investigators too often considered only males and their genitalia, while overlooking female genitalia or physiology. Our analysis of the literature shows that overall this male bias has worsened with time. The degree of bias is not consistent between subdisciplines: studies of the lock-and-key hypothesis have been the most male focused, while studies of cryptic female choice usually consider both sexes. The degree of bias also differed across taxonomic groups, but did not associate with the ease of study of male and female genital characteristics. We argue that the persisting male bias in this field cannot solely be explained by anatomical sex differences influencing accessibility. Rather the bias reflects enduring assumptions about the dominant role of males in sex, and invariant female genitalia. New research highlights how rapidly female genital traits can evolve, and how complex coevolutionary dynamics between males and females can shape genital structures. We argue that understanding genital evolution is hampered by an outdated single-sex bias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.