Diving beetles dive for a reason; diving is part of their hunting technique whereby they swim up to their prey and GRASP it with their hyperdeveloped front legs. This is how they get food. In other words, the ability to strongly GRASP and HOLD are defining characteristics of a healthy and prospering diving beetle.

Now scientists have found that the mating activities of diving beetles re-enforce selection for ability to grasp and hold.

Gosh! Do you really think that this is a good example of a failure of Darwinian selection?

bobshipp, Jacksonville, Florida, USA

Surely that should read A. Canaliculatus, not camalicutus?

Andie Hall, london,

I don't see how this is any different from the battles of long horn sheep, lions or apes, except it isn't male against male. Look at what human males have to do - dinner, flowers, kind words, candle light and they still may not get "IT".
For some reason, in these species the proof of worthiness skips a few lines and comes down to "Catch me if you can!" - actually, that may work better than male on male battle and may be slightly safer for the males in the long run, its certainly more direct ! Why is this that odd, why is it news?
Also,calling it 'rape' is anthropomorphizing the bugs - rape can only happen when there is HUMAN consciousness behind actions, nature knows no sin, only necessity .

Kathleen Mary, Federal Way , USA/WA

"A beetle that never wants to get pregnant has overturned one of Charles Darwin's theories..."

The need to reproduce is incorporated into a desire of the parent for their offspring to survive. As this survival is most probable when a female mates with the fittest male, a female will develop methods to select between the males in terms of a particular trait, whether colour, strength or length of eye-stalks. A male, however, often maximises reproductive success by mating with many females, so a male will be selected on to overcome female defences. So in fact the Acilius genus do NOT contradict any evolutionary theories, but instead emphasise the remarkable complexity of evolution and natural selection.

This report is guilty of deliberately misleading the public in the cause of sensationalism, and demonstrates why science communication should be undertaken only with understanding of the topic. Science can be brilliant and very exciting without "spicing up" the findings.

Lucy Sandbach, Colchester, UK

This feature of females making it so that only strong males can reproduce with them, thereby strengthening the species, does not overturn Darwin's arguments! Over sensational report.

Pete, Bristol, UK

It's not a month since the Times informed us that bdelloid rotifers had too many teeth or some such nonsense thus 'overturning Darwinian Theory'. Perhaps the Theory of evolution could be used to generate electricity since it seems to turn over completely with every minor biological discovery reported.

George, La Rochelle, France

Try ducks. Males regularly drown females while trying to mate. They don't allow the poor thing to breathe!

starling, Lancaster,

Not really seeing how it ensures survival of the strongest when it may be the strongest male that succeeds in mating but the chances are he's only going to get the weakest female as by the definition of the scenario above, any really good female fighter is not going to produce eggs. Or larvae or whatever.

And lets face it beetles don't have a monopoly on rape to produce progeny. It happens among humans in war zones and areas of "Ethnic Cleansing" all the time.

Thaila, London,

All of this rampant anthropomorphism (e,g,: "rape"; "females want", "headaches", etc.)
is amusing, but absurd.

Perhaps the females bugs are simply mutating their irregular shells to try to "encourage" a more tenacious and healthy male.

The weaklings would be shaken off, but the more aggressive males who show stick-to-it-ive-ness and cunning will produce offspring (thus, the "fittest" for this animal model would survive).

So, ithis test would prove Darwinian selection by presenting an obstacle for the diffident and sluggish and winnowing out all but the "best" beetles.

Nature is an endlessly complex dance of desire.

Sometimes "nasty, brutish and short", and other times like "gossamer, honey and self-less love".

Constricting this protean Universe into a puny image only shows our own smallness of soul.

Edo Van Ede, Dordrecht, The Netherlands

This is startlingly ignorant science reporting and political bias.
All species have some means of testing the male for vigour before he is allowed to mate.
This is as evdent here as in any other species.
To call this "rape" is absurd bogus anthropomorphism.
There is no "battle of the sexes" but a battle between males for which have the most vigour.
This is rooted in the essential sex difference: that the male acts as a 'filter' for the genetic material of the whole lineage; this because the male is the 'limiting factor' in reproduction. The males take out of the gene pool gene replication errors, and also segregate for retention enhancing genetic material.

It is always alarming how scientifically illiterate is news reporting of science.
And, of course, scientists themselves angle synposes of their work to fit with the media agenda: which is always virulently anti-male.

steve moxon, sheffield,

Wow! Despite the horrible weather I must go out and buy a copy of the times so that I can cut out this article in order to justify myself whenever I say to a woman or a group of female friends that sex is a very interesting and fascinating subject to the extent that it warrants a lot of experiments and close examinations!

Wing, Poole, UK

Anthropomorphism and a male orientated view of natural species can make natural history documentaries quite unreal. Example, beetles running away. Who said female beetles want to mate anyway.

Jane Fleming, Whittlesey, CAMBRIDGESHIRE