Sexual selection theory.

There has been a long history of debate on sexual selection culminating in the recent controversy published in Animal Behaviour in 2010, (79, e1-e3). The problem starts, I believe, with Charles Darwin’s definition as…”the advantage which certain individuals have over others ….in exclusive relation to reproduction.”(Darwin 1874), p256. I suggest that it is the term ‘reproduction’ that is the cause of the confusion. To quote, ”…in this view, both sexual selection and natural selection are manifested as differential reproductive success”(Spencer and Masters 1992), p206. Yet sexual and natural selection are often considered to be apposing forces with natural selection improving survival and sexual selection reducing it (Spencer and Masters 1992), pp. 295-296. Redefined as activities in exclusive relation to mating (Krebs and Davies 1981) p183, solves some problems but appears prone to fall into the adaptationist trap (Gould 1987), p. 34,35. By this is meant the erection of convincing but untestable hypotheses about adaptation (Spencer and Masters 1992), pp295,296. Furthermore, by  redefining sexual selection in this way leaves several important topics, such as sperm competition, cryptic female choice, sex ratio and reproductive effort, in an uncertain position. These matters remain unresolved and can lead to practical difficulties. For example, my colleague Marion Petrie and I took different views over what to include under Sexual Selection Theory in my module on Behavioural Ecology. There were consequences for the marking of final year exam papers. I believe the status of sexual selection theory is irresoluable, a conclusion which should be born in mind when framing questions in this area. But opinions voiced in a recent debate published in Animal Behaviour (cited above), question the need for a theory of sexual selection at all. This is not the same as my own, less serious, concerns over what should be included under the title. Incidentally, this old chestnut is notable because it has just been reviewed, in exquisite depth and with flare, by Helena Cronin (1994). Remarkable, with the single exception of David Shuker, none of the protagonists cite her at all. Could it be that they are unaware that, because it has already been done, they are wasting their time? Or, as one contributer suggests, it may be the fault of the journal Animal Behaviour for resurrecting, with nothing new to add, an already exhausted debate. 

But that is still not the end of the matter. I note another special issue published by the journal Animal Behaviour (2020. 164. 217-291), where the same ground is churned over yet again. With twelve authors  this is  interesting stuff but I can find not a single reference to Cronin. To laps in this way a second time in baffling among so many learned people. 

References

Cronin, H. (1994). The Ant and the Peacock. Cambridge University Press.

           

Darwin, C. (1874). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. New York, 1959, The Modern Library, Random House.

           

Gould, S. J. (1987). An Urchin in the Storm. London, Collins Harvill.

           

Krebs, J. R. and N. B. Davies (1981). An Introduction to Behavioural Ecology. London, Blackwell Scientific Publications.

           

Spencer, H. G. and J. C. Masters (1992). Sexual Selection: Contemporary Debates. Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. F. K. E. E, A. Lloyd, Harvard University Press.