作者: Gillian R. Brown , Kevin N. Laland , Monique Borgerhoff Mulder
DOI: 10.1016/J.TREE.2013.08.002
关键词:
摘要: TREE-1089; No of Pages 8 Opinion Bateman’s principles and human sex roles Gillian R. Brown 1 , Kevin N. Laland 2 Monique Borgerhoff Mulder 3 School Psychology, University St Andrews, South Street, Fife, KY16 9JP, UK Biology, Bute Medical Building, Queen’s Terrace, 9TS, Department Anthropology, California, Davis, California 95616-8522, USA In 1948, Angus J. Bateman reported a stronger relation- ship between mating reproductive success in male fruit flies compared with females, concluded that selection should universally favour ‘an undiscriminating eagerness the males discriminating passivity females’ to obtain mates. The conventional view promiscuous, coy, choosy females has also been applied our own species. Here, we challenge evolutionary theory pre- scribes stereotyped beings, firstly by reviewing recent sexual and, secondly, examining data on behaviour current historic populations. We argue strategies are unlikely conform single universal pattern. Descent Man, Charles Darwin [1] noted that, throughout animal kingdom, ‘the almost all animals have passions than females. Hence it is fight together sedulously display their charms before female’ (Ref. [1], p. 272). erroneously suggested ultimately resulted from lower costs transporting small sperm moving relatively larger eggs [1]. first compelling explanation why competitiveness (see Glossary) choosiness might differ sexes was provided [2] an experimental study (Drosophila melanogaster). famous experiments showed number offspring fathered Drosophila increased his mates, whereas female fly did not gain increase several males. because ova more costly produce sperm, produced limited mainly her ability eggs, he inseminated. He stated species, difference gamete size would result greater within-sex competition amongst [2]. importance idea brought prominence Robert Trivers [3], who drew attention postzygotic parental investment, such as feeding young defence against predators. Corresponding author: Brown, G.R. (grb4@st-andrews.ac.uk). predicted largest usually female, become limiting resource for which members other compete. When invest males, ratio repro- ductively available (the operational [OSR] [4]) assumed be male-biased. these situations, expected vary competing less intensely mates seeking out fewer partners [3,5]. Apparently support this argument, variance some insects, frogs, lizards, birds mammals [3,6]. Conversely, sex-role-reversal species high levels paternal dicted compete limit [7]. aim paper review shape relationship variables his- toric populations, consider implications variation populations understanding roles. sex-role evolution Arnold [8] useful recognize actually derived three flies: (i) Glossary principle: states show second third there among Choosiness: proportion potential individual rejects. Competitiveness: intensity competes same sex. Monandry: mate only one partner during lifetime. Monogamy: both Operational (OSR): reproductively Polygyny: multiple concurrently. Serial monandry: sequentially monogamy: Sex roles: set patterns shown when or choosing (i.e. relative competitive- ness females). 0169-5347/$ – see front matter s 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.02.005 Available online xxxxxx