Abstract
The high prevalence of sexual reproduction is considered a paradox mainly for two reasons. First, asexuals should enjoy various growth benefits because they seemingly rid themselves of the many inefficiencies of sexual reproduction-the so-called costs of sex. Second, there seems to be no lack of asexual origins because losses of sexual reproduction have been described in almost every larger eukaryotic taxon. Current attempts to resolve this paradox concentrate on a few hypotheses that provide universal benefits that would compensate for these costs and give sexual reproduction a net advantage. However, are new asexual lineages really those powerful invaders that could quickly displace their sexual ancestors? Research on the costs of sex indicates that sex is often stabilized by highly lineage-specific mechanisms. Two main categories can be distinguished. First are beneficial traits that evolved within a particular species and became tightly associated with sex (e.g., a mating system that involves sexual selection, or a sexual diapausing stage that allows survival through harsh periods). If such traits are absent in asexuals, simple growth efficiency considerations will not capture the fitness benefits gained by skipping sexual reproduction. Second, lineage-specific factors might prevent asexuals from reaching their full potential (e.g., dependence on fertilization in sperm-dependent parthenogens). Such observations suggest that the costs of sex are highly variable and often lower than theoretical considerations suggest. This has implications for the magnitude of universal benefits required to resolve the paradox of sex.