I'm stumped by Exercise 2.3 in Harris-Morrison, which says:

"Show that there does not exist a universal family of curves of genus 2 over any open subset $U \subset M_2$. In general, if $H_g \subset M_g$ is the locus of hyperelliptic curves, for which $g$ does there exist a universal family over some open subset $U \subset H_g$? Answer: for $g$ odd."

It's not 100% clear what is meant by "universal family"; possibly it just means some family each of whose (closed) fiber is ``the right curve''.

Question: what precisely is the question, and then what is the answer?

In any case the "exercise" seems to suggest a fundamental difference between hyperelliptic curves with odd vs even genus. I'd be happy to see an explanation of what this difference is.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is a Galois cover $M_{0,2g+2}\to H_g$ with Galois group $\mathfrak{S}_{2g+2}$. There is a curve (generically) over $M_{0,2g+2}$. The quotient by the hyperelliptic involution is the universal genus $0$ curve over $M_{0,2g+2}$. Moreover, the dualizing sheaf on the hyperelliptic curve is the pullback from this genus $0$ curve of an invertible sheaf of degree $g-1$. The genus $0$ curve descends to $H_g$. The question is whether the invertible sheaf of degree $g-1$ descends. It does descend if $g-1$ is even, since then it is a (negative) tensor power of the dualizing sheaf. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 14, 2016 at 19:07
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, is it clear that it doesn't descend if $g-1$ is odd? $\endgroup$
    – user84144
    Commented Jul 20, 2016 at 16:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is a simpler model than $M_{0,2g+2}$, namely $(\mathbb{P}^1)^{2g+2} = \mathbb{P}^1 \times \dots \times \mathbb{P}^1$. This is, generically, a $\textbf{PGL}_2\times \mathfrak{S}_{2g+2}$-torsor over $H_g$. Using the fact that the $\textbf{PGL}_2$-action on $\mathbb{P}^1$ linearizes to $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(d)$ if and only if $d$ is even, I did convince myself once that the class does not descend when $g-1$ is odd. The details look a little messy. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 20, 2016 at 16:46

1 Answer 1


I think that the answer to your question is in http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.0635.pdf Proposition 4.7.

There they also point out that "universal family" should in fact be replaced with "tautological family".

(The notion of a tautological family is I believe the one defined in Lemma 3.89 by Harris and Morrison)


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.