Skip Navigation

Integrative and Comparative Biology 2005 45(5):915-923; doi:10.1093/icb/45.5.915
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 (2)
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Drea, C. 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

Bateman Revisited: The Reproductive Tactics of Female Primates1

Christine M. Drea2,1
1 Department of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy, Duke University, Box 90383, Durham, North Carolina 27708-0383

The breeding system of an animal population is thought to depend on the ability of one sex (usually the male) to acquire mates, either directly through association with females or indirectly through defense of the resources desired by females. The sex that contributes most to infant care (usually the female) is constrained by parental involvement and thereby limits reproduction of the opposite sex. Accordingly, males, but not females, enhance their reproductive success by acquiring additional mates. This classical view has emphasized the role of male–male competition in sexual selection, at the expense of fully exploring the potential for female choice. A more recent shift in focus has revealed substantial variation in female reproductive success and increasingly accentuates the importance of female intrasexual competition and male mate choice. A comparative review of primate reproduction, therefore, challenges expectations of male control and female compliance, and calls for a comprehensive treatment of costs and benefits that extends beyond conventional mention of heavy female investment versus male negligence or absenteeism. For individuals that manipulate their social environment or reproductive output, consideration of more subtle, even cryptic, aspects of female behavior and physiology (e.g., social strategizing, sexual solicitation or rejection, sexual advertisement or concealed ovulation, multiple mating, and reproductive failure) raises the question of whether females can be effectively ‘monopolized.’ Widespread patterns that counter Bateman's paradigm call for a reexamination of the predictions generated by dichotomizing gametes into ‘expensive eggs’ and ‘cheap sperm,’ and encourage continued mechanistic research focused on conception quality rather than quantity.


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.