Aesthetic evolution by mate choice: Darwin's really dangerous idea

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 367, Issue 1600, 2012, Pages 2253-2265

  Prum, Richard O ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Adaptation; Aesthetics; Beauty; Natural selection; Sexual selection

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION; ASSESSMENT METHOD; COEVOLUTION; CORRELATION; MATE CHOICE; NATURAL SELECTION; NUMERICAL MODEL; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SENSORY SYSTEM; SEXUAL SELECTION;

GABAZA;

EID: 84863824543     PISSN: 09628436     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0285     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Prum, R. O. 1990 Phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of display behavior in the neotropical manakins (Aves: Pipridae). Ethology 84, 202-231. (doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1990.tb00798.x)
2. Prum, R. O. 1997 Phylogenetic tests of alternative intersexual selection mechanisms: macroevolution of male traits in a polygynous clade (Aves: Pipridae). Am. Nat. 149, 668-692. (doi:10.1086/286014)
3. Prum, R. O. & Johnson, A. E. 1987 Display behavior, foraging ecology, and systematics of the Golden-winged Manakin (Masius chrysopterus). Wilson Bull. 87, 521-539.
4. Prum, R. O. 2010 The Lande - Kirkpatrick mechanism is the null model of evolution by intersexual selection: implications for meaning, honesty, and design in intersexual signals. Evolution 64, 3085-3100. (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01054.x)
5. Lande, R. 1981 Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 78, 3721-3725. (doi:10.1073/pnas.78.6.3721)
6. Kirkpatrick, M. 1982 Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 82, 1-12. (doi:10.2307/2407961)
7. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M. J. 1991 The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350, 33-38. (doi:10.1038/350033a0)
8. Fisher, R. A. 1915 The evolution of sexual preference. Eugen. Rev. 7, 184-191.
9. Fisher, R. A. 1930 The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
10. Fisher, R. A. 1958 The genetical theory of natural selection, 2nd revised edn. New York, NY: Dover Publications.
11. Darwin, C. 1871 The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London, UK: John Murray.
12. Cronin, H. 1991 The ant and the peacock. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13. Dawkins, R. 2004 The ancestor's tale. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.
14. West-Eberhard, M. J. 1979 Sexual selection, social competition, and evolution. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 123, 222-234.
15. West-Eberhard, M. J. 1983 Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q. Rev. Biol. 58, 155-183. (doi:10.1086/413215)
16. Milam, E. K. 2010 Looking for a few good males: female choice in evolutionary biology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
17. Grafen, A. 1990 Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J. Theoret. Biol. 144, 473-516. (doi:10.1016/S0022-5193(05)80087-6)
18. Wallace, A. R. 1895 Natural selection and tropical nature, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Macmillan and Co.
19. Zahavi, A. 1975 Mate selection- a selection for a handicap. J. Theoret. Biol. 53, 205-214. (doi:10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3)
20. Shuster, S. M. & Wade, M. J. 2003 Mating systems and strategies, p. 533. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21. Endler, J. A. 1986 Natural Selection in the wild, p. 336. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22. Arnold, S. J. 1994 Bateman principles and the measurement of sexual selection in plants and animals. Am. Nat. 144(Suppl.), S126-S149. (doi:10.1086/285656)
23. Arnold, S. J. & Wade, M. 1984 On the measurement of natural and sexual selection: applications. Evolution 38, 720-734. (doi:10.2307/2408384)
24. Fuller, R. C., Houle, D. & Travis, J. 2005 Sensory bias as an explanation for the evolution of mating preferences. Am. Nat. 166, 437-446. (doi:10.1086/444443)
25. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., McNamara, J. M. & Houston, A. I. 2002 The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 1331-1340. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2020)
26. Kokko, H., Jennions, M. D. & Brooks, R. 2006 Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 43-66. (doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110259)
27. Hamilton, W. D. & Zuk, M. 1982 Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218, 384-387. (doi:10.1126/science.7123238)
28. Endler, J. A. & Basolo, A. L. 1998 Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 415-420. (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01471-2)
29. Evans, C. S., Evans, L. & Marler, P. 1993 On the meaning of alarm calls: functional reference in an avian vocal system. Anim. Behav. 46, 23-38. (doi:10.1006/anbe.1993.1158)
30. Ryan, M. J. 1990 Sexual selection, sensory systems, and sensory exploitation. Oxford Surveys Evol. Biol. 7, 157-195.
31. Shaw, K. 1995 Phylogenetic tests of the sensory exploitation model of sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10, 117-120. (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89005-9)
32. Darwin, C. 1862 On the various contrivances by which British and foreign orchids are fertilised by insects. London, UK: John Murray.
33. Darwin, C. 1877 The different forms of flowers on plants of the same species. London, UK: John Murray.
34. Ryan, M. J., Akre, K. L. & Kirkpatrick, M. 2009 Cognitive mate choice. In Cognitive ecology, vol 2 (eds R. Dukas & J. Ratcliffe), pp. 137-155. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35. Gerlach, N., McGlothlin, J. W., Parker, P. G. & Ketterson, E. D. 2012 Promiscuous mating produces offspring with higher lifetime fitness. Proc. R. Soc. B 279, 860-866. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.1547)
36. Andersson, M. 1994 Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37. Byers, J., Hebets, E. & Podos, J. 2010 Female mate choice based upon male motor performance. Anim. Behav. 79, 771-778. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2010.01.009)
38. Barkse, J., Schlinger, B. A., Wikelski, M. & Fusani, L. 2011 Female choice for male motor skills. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 3523-3528. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.0382)
39. Thery, M. 2006 Effects of light environment on color communication. In Bird coloration, vol. 1 (eds G. E. Hill & K. J. McGraw), pp. 148-173. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.
40. Gould, S. J. & Lewontin, R. C. 1979 The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205, 581-598. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0086)
41. Kuhn, T. S. 1970 The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edn., p. 210. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
42. Dennet, D. C. 1995 Darwin's dangerous idea. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.