Sexual conflict and indirect benefits

Journal of Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 16, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 1055-1060

  Cameron, Erin ^a   Day, T ^a   Rowe, L ^b  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Genetic covariance; Good genes; Sexual selection; Sexually antagonistic coevolution; Sexy sons

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; GOOD GENES HYPOTHESIS; SEXUAL CONFLICT; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; MALE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; MALE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; SELECTION (GENETICS); SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 0043241874     PISSN: 1010061X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00584.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual Selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
2. Chapman, T., Arnqvist, G., Bangham J. & Rowe, L. 2003. Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18: 41-47.
3. Cordero, C. & Eberhard, G. 2003. Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J. Evol. Biol. 16: 1-6.
4. Day, T. 2000. Sexual selection and the evolution of costly female preferences: spatial effects. Evolution 54: 715-730.
5. Fisher, R.A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
6. Gavrilets, S., Arnqvist, G. & Friberg, U. 2001. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc. R. Soc Lond. B. 268:531-539.
7. Hall, D.W., Kirkpatrick, M. & West, B. 2000. Runaway sexual selection when female preferences are directly selected. Evolution 54:1862-1869.
8. Holland, B. & Rice, W.R. 1998. Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52:1-7.
9. Iwasa, Y., Pomiankowski, A. & Nee, S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences II. The 'handicap' principle. Evolution 45: 1431-1442.
10. Kirkpatrick, M. 1985. Evolution of female choice and male parental investment in polygynous species: the demise of the 'sexy son'. Am. Nat. 125: 788-810.
11. Kirkpatrick, M. 1996. Good genes and direct selection in the evolution of mating preferences. Evolution 50: 2125-2140.
12. Kirkpatrick, M. & Barton, N.H. 1997. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 1282-1286.
13. Kokko, H. 2001. Fisherian and 'good genes' benefits of mate choice: how (not) to distinguish between them. Ecol. Lett. 4: 322-326.
14. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., McNamara, J.M. & Houston, A.I. 2002. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 269: 1333-1340.
15. Moller, A.P. & Alatalo R.V. 1999. Good genes effects in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 266: 85-91.
16. Moller, A.P, & Jennions, M.D. 2001. How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection? Naturwissenschaften 88: 401-415.
17. Parker, G.A. 1979. Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects (M. S. Blum & N. B. Blum ed.) pp. 123-166. Academic Press, New York.
18. Pizzari, T. & Snook, R.R. Sexual conflict and sexual selection: chasing away paradigm shifts. Evolution in press.
19. Pomiankowski, A., Iwasa, Y. & Nee, S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45: 1422-1430.
20. Rowe, L. & Houle, D. 1996. The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 263: 1415-1421.
21. Weatherhead, P.J. & Robertson, R.J. 1979. Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: 'the sexy son hypothesis'. Am. Nat. 113: 201-208.