Skip Navigation

Integrative and Comparative Biology 2005 45(5):945-951; doi:10.1093/icb/45.5.945
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wade, M. J.
Right arrow Articles by Shuster, S. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology

Don't Throw Bateman Out with the Bathwater!

Michael J. Wade2,1 and Stephen M. Shuster3,2
1 Department of Biology, Indiana University, 1001 East 3rd Street, Bloomington, Indiana 47405
2 Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011-5640

Bateman identified two aspects of sexual selection. The first, called Bateman's principle, is that sexual selection favors increased promiscuity of males but not of females as a result of differences in parental investment in gametes. The second is that the variance in mate number of males is the fundamental cause of a sex difference in fitness variance. We argue that Bateman's insight about the source of sexual selection is more fundamental than his speculation about patterns of parental investment. We show that, when the sex ratio is 1:1, the average female must be as promiscuous as the average male, because each copulation involves one male and one female. Because mean male and female promiscuity are tied together in the same manner as mean male and female fitness, a sex difference in mating propensity must be the result of either (1) a sex difference in the covariance between matings and number offspring, or (2) Fisherian run-away sexual selection, wherein female reluctance to mate is a weak form of female choice. We show how female promiscuity can limit the evolution of male promiscuity, turning the central argument of parental investment theory on its head.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.