The role of genes and environment in the phenotypic expression of alternative mating tactics: a reply to Buzatto et al.

Buzatto et al. [1] state that our recommendation to bring together previous, dichotomous game-theoretical approaches of modelling alternative strategies and a conditional strategy is unnecessary as fusion synthesis of this kind has already been carried out via the environmental threshold model. By presenting a verbal model in the conclusion and future direction section of our review paper, these authors state that we have developed a ‘new theory’ that is unnecessary. As detailed in our review paper [2], we generally agree with the authors that there has been excellent past work on the quantitative genetics of polyphenisms, including in the area of alternative mating tactics. Indeed, we did cite numerous papers in this area, including several written by Hazel and Tomkins. For example, we cite such papers in the general context of identifying problems with the game-theoretical approach for modelling alternative mating tactics [3] as well as for work detailing genetic variation underlying conditional polymorphisms [4–6]. While our citation list is by no means exhaustive, we do feel we have reviewed key developments in the field, including quantitative genetic models of polyphenisms. We do, however, disagree with Buzatto et al.’s [1] comments on the verbal model we propose and its necessity. First, our verbal model is as much a summary of our perspective on the roles that genes and environment play in governing alternative mating tactics as it is a model, and certainly it is not a formalized mathematical model. For example, in reference to the game-theoretical and status-dependent selection frameworks, Neff & Svensson [2, p. 8] state: