Lably
Skip to content

Sexual selection

Mode of natural selection involving the choosing of and competition for mates

  • 16 min read
  • 3 chapters
Sexual selection
Unknown author · Public domain

Related on Lably

Through Evolution, Population (biology) and Natural selection

The concept was first articulated by Charles Darwin who wrote of a "second agency" other than natural selection, in which competition between mate candidates could lead to speciation. His ideas were opposed by Alfred Russel Wallace, but supported with observations by George and Elizabeth Peckham and by Edward Bagnall Poulton late in the 19th century.

The theory was given a mathematical basis by Ronald Fisher in the 1930s, while experimental evidence was gathered later in work by Marion Petrie and others. Sexual selection can lead males to extreme efforts to demonstrate their fitness to be chosen by females, producing sexual dimorphism in secondary sexual characteristics, such as the ornate plumage of birds-of-paradise and peafowl, or the antlers of deer. Depending on the species, these rules can be reversed. This is caused by a positive feedback mechanism known as a Fisherian runaway, where the passing-on of the desire for a trait in one sex is as important as having the trait in the other sex in producing the runaway effect. Although the sexy son hypothesis indicates that females would prefer male offspring, Fisher's principle explains why the sex ratio is most often 1:1. Sexual selection is widely distributed in the animal kingdom, and is also found in plants and fungi.

History

Darwin, Wallace, and Poulton

Sexual selection was first proposed by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species (1859) and developed in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871), as he felt that natural selection alone was unable to account for certain types of non-survival adaptations. He once wrote to a colleague that "The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!" His work divided sexual selection into male–male competition and female choice.

... depends, not on a struggle for existence, but on a struggle between the males for possession of the females; the result is not death to the unsuccessful competitor, but few or no offspring.

... when the males and females of any animal have the same general habits ... but differ in structure, colour, or ornament, such differences have been mainly caused by sexual selection.

These views were to some extent opposed by Alfred Russel Wallace, mostly after Darwin's death. He accepted that sexual selection could occur, but argued that it was a relatively weak form of selection. He argued that male–male competitions were forms of natural selection, but that the "drab" peahen's coloration is itself adaptive as camouflage. In his opinion, ascribing mate choice to females was attributing the ability to judge standards of beauty to animals (such as beetles) far too cognitively undeveloped to be capable of aesthetic feeling.

Darwin placed far more emphasis on sexual selection as a driver of evolution than any of his contemporaries. The concept of sexual selection and mate choice was highly ideologically unpalatable to many Victorians due to their implications for human, particularly female, sexuality. Additionally, taxa such as insects were not considered intelligent enough to have an aesthetic sense and be able to perform mate choices based on small differences in display organs.

Edward Bagnall Poulton's 1890 book The Colours of Animals addressed sexual selection in birds, butterflies and moths, and spiders, and the possibility of an aesthetic sense in female birds. Poulton argued, for example, that in some spiders, citing the 1889 research of George and Elizabeth Peckham, the male displays and the female selects the male she prefers:

The female always watches the antics of the male intently, but often refuses him in the end, 'even after dancing before her for a long time'. Such observations strongly point towards the existence of female preference based on aesthetic considerations.

Poulton and Wallace disagreed on the mechanisms involved: Poulton argued against Wallace's views in the book, and Wallace wrote a critical review of the book in Nature, objecting especially to Poulton's proposal of an aesthetic sense.

Fisherian runaway

Ronald Fisher, the English statistician and evolutionary biologist, developed his ideas about sexual selection in his 1930 book The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, taking up Darwin's ideas.

The main postulate of Darwin's theory of sexual selection, namely the exercise of sexual preference, will thus tend to be satisfied by the effects of previous selection. We may infer that the rudiments of an aesthetic faculty so developed thus pervade entire classes... In species so situated that the reproductive success of one sex depends greatly upon winning the favour of the other, as appears evidently to be the case with many polygamous birds, sexual selection will itself act by increasing the intensity of the preference to which it is due... —Ronald Fisher, 1930

These include the sexy son hypothesis, which might suggest a preference for male offspring, and Fisher's principle, which explains why the sex ratio is usually close to 1:1. The Fisherian runaway describes how sexual selection accelerates the preference for a specific ornament, causing the preferred trait and female preference for it to increase together in a positive feedback runaway cycle. He remarked that:

... plumage development in the male, and sexual preference for such developments in the female, must thus advance together, and so long as the process is unchecked by severe counterselection, will advance with ever-increasing speed. In the total absence of such checks, it is easy to see that the speed of development will be proportional to the development already attained, which will therefore increase with time exponentially, or in geometric progression. —Ronald Fisher, 1930

This causes a dramatic increase in both the male's conspicuous feature and in female preference for it, resulting in marked sexual dimorphism, until practical physical constraints halt further exaggeration. A positive feedback loop is created, producing extravagant physical structures in the non-limiting sex. A classic example of female choice and potential runaway selection is the long-tailed widowbird. While males have long tails that are selected for by female choice, female tastes in tail length are still more extreme with females being attracted to tails longer than those that naturally occur. Fisher understood that female preference for long tails may be passed on genetically, in conjunction with genes for the long tail itself. Long-tailed widowbird offspring of both sexes inherit both sets of genes, with females expressing their genetic preference for long tails, and males showing off the coveted long tail itself.

Richard Dawkins presents a non-mathematical explanation of the runaway sexual selection process in his book The Blind Watchmaker. Females that prefer long tailed males tend to have mothers that chose long-tailed fathers. As a result, they carry both sets of genes in their bodies. That is, genes for long tails and for preferring long tails become linked. The taste for long tails and tail length itself may therefore become correlated, tending to increase together. The more tails lengthen, the more long tails are desired. Any slight initial imbalance between taste and tails may set off an explosion in tail lengths. Fisher wrote that:

The exponential element, which is the kernel of the thing, arises from the rate of change in hen taste being proportional to the absolute average degree of taste. —Ronald Fisher, 1932

The female widowbird chooses to mate with the most attractive long-tailed male so that her progeny, if male, will themselves be attractive to females of the next generation—thereby fathering many offspring that carry the female's genes. Since the rate of change in preference is proportional to the average taste amongst females, and as females desire to secure the services of the most sexually attractive males, an additive effect is created that, if unchecked, can yield exponential increases in a given taste and in the corresponding desired sexual attribute.

It is important to notice that the conditions of relative stability brought about by these or other means, will be far longer duration than the process in which the ornaments are evolved. In most existing species the runaway process must have been already checked, and we should expect that the more extraordinary developments of sexual plumage are not due like most characters to a long and even course of evolutionary progress, but to sudden spurts of change. —Ronald Fisher, 1930

Since Fisher's initial conceptual model of the 'runaway' process, Russell Lande and Peter O'Donald have provided detailed mathematical proofs that define the circumstances under which runaway sexual selection can take place. Alongside this, biologists have extended Darwin's formulation; Malte Andersson's widely accepted 1994 definition is that "sexual selection is the differences in reproduction that arise from variation among individuals in traits that affect success in competition over mates and fertilizations". Despite some practical challenges for biologists, the concept of sexual selection is "straightforward".

A major driver of evolution

Darwin's ideas on sexual selection were not widely considered of great importance until in the 1930s biologists decided to include sexual selection as a mode of natural selection. Even during the modern synthesis, however, sexual selection was still widely seen as being of secondary importance, and many leading evolutionary theorists like George Ledyard Stebbins, George Gaylord Simpson, and Theodosius Dobzhansky devoted little attention to it. The mathematician Ronald Fisher was the main exception, as he studied sexual selection in detail during this era. Only by the 1960s and 1970s, thanks to Robert Trivers and other evolutionary biologists who examined sexual and other social behaviour in the context of evolution did biology shift towards an understanding of sexual selection as one of the major drivers of evolution. In the 1990s, Marion Petrie observed courtship behaviour and mate choice especially in the peafowl, demonstrating that the females selected males with gaudier plumage.

In the 21st century, sexual selection is seen as generally applicable and analogous to natural selection. A ten-year study, experimentally varying sexual selection on flour beetles with other factors held constant, showed that sexual selection protected even an inbred population against extinction.

Sign in to keep reading

2 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Biology