Abstract
Why do females prefer elaborate male mating displays in species where they receive little more from males than their sperm? Here we review three hypotheses for the evolution of mating preferences: direct selection, the runaway process and the parasite mechanism. There is growing support for direct selection, in which preferences evolve because of their direct effects on female fitness rather than the genetic effects on offspring resulting from mate choice.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hamilton, W. D. & Zuk, M. Science 218, 384–387 (1982).
Bradbury, J. W. & Andersson, M. B. (eds) Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives (Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1987).
Kirkpatrick, M. A. Rev. ecol. Syst. 18, 43–70 (1987).
O'Donald, P. Genetic Models of Sexual Selection (Cambridge University Press, 1980).
Lande, R. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 78, 3721–3725 (1981).
Kirkpatrick, M. Evolution 36, 1–12 (1982).
Seger, J. Evolution 39, 1185–1193 (1985).
Gomulkiewicz, R. S. & Hastings, A. Evolution 44, 757–770 (1990).
Barton, N. H. & Turelli, M. Genetics 127, 229–255 (1991).
Fisher, R. A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection 2nd Edn (Dover, New York, 1958).
Parker, G. A. in Mate Choice (ed. Bateson, P.) 141–166 (Cambridge University Press, 1983).
Kirkpatrick, M. Am. Nat. 125, 788–810 (1985).
Andersson, M. Evolution 40, 804–816 (1986).
Pomiankowski, A. J. theor. Biol. 128, 195–218 (1987).
Curtsinger, J. W. & Heisler, I. L. Am. Nat. 132, 437–453 (1988).
Bulmer, M. Theor. Pop. Biol. 35, 195–206 (1989).
Heywood, J. S. Evolution 43, 1387–1397 (1989).
Grafen, A. J. theor. Biol. 144, 473–516 (1990).
Trivers, R. L. in Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man (ed. Campbell, B.) 136–179 (Aldine, Chicago, 1972).
Zahavi, A. J. theor. Biol. 53, 205–214 (1975).
Pomiankowski, A. Oxford Surv. evol. Biol. 5, 136–184 (1988).
Maynard-Smith, J. J. theor. Biol. 115, 1–8 (1985).
Thornhill, R. Am. Nat. 122, 765–788 (1983).
Price, T. D. Evolution 38, 327–341 (1984).
Lightbody, J. P. & Weatherhead, P. J. Am. Nat. 132, 20–33 (1988).
Ryan, M. J. Oxford Surv. evol. Biol. 7, 156–195 (1990).
Endler, J. A. in Speciation and Its Consequences (eds Otte, D. & Endler, J. A.) 625–648 (Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 1989).
Fleichman, L. Am. Nat. (in the press).
Christy, J. Ethology 78, 113–128 (1988).
Nevo, E. & Capranica, R. R. Evol. Biol. 19, 147–214 (1985).
Robertson, J. G. Anim. Behav. 39, 639–645 (1989).
Markow, T. A., Quaid, M. & Kerr, S. Nature 276, 821–822 (1978).
Borgia, G. & Collis, K. Am. Zool. 30, 279–285 (1990).
Møller, A. P. J. evol. Biol. 3, 319–328 (1990).
Reynolds, J. D. & Gross, M. R. Am. Nat. 136, 230–243 (1990).
Ryan, M. J. The Túngara Frog, a Study in Sexual Selection and Communication (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1985).
Basolo, A. Science 230, 808–810 (1990).
Ryan, M. J., Fox, J. H., Wilczynski, W. & Rand, A. S. Nature 343, 66–67 (1990).
Stoner, G. & Breden, F. Behav. ecol. Sociobiol. 22, 285–291 (1988).
Houde, A. E. & Endler, J. A. Science 248, 1405–1408 (1990).
Am. Zool. 30, 225–352 (1990).
Boyce, M. S. Am. Zool. 30, 279–285 (1990).
Read, A. Nature 328, 68–70 (1987).
Ward, P. I. Anim. Behav. 36, 1210–1215 (1988).
Read, A. F. & Harvey, P. H. Nature 339, 618–620 (1989).
Read, A. F. & Weary, D. M. Behav. ecol. Sociobiol. 26, 47–56 (1990).
Chandler, M. & Cabana, G. Oikos (in the press).
Heisler, I. L. Genet. Res. 44, 133–149 (1984).
Majerus, M. E. N., O'Donald, P., Kearns, P. W. E. & Ireland, H. Nature 321, 164–167 (1986).
Sappington, T. W. & Taylor, O. R. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 87, 6132–6135.
Kirkpatrick, M. in Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives (eds Bradbury, J. W. & Andersson, M. B.) 41–53 (Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1987).
Sanderson, N. Evolution 43, 1223–1235 (1989).
Kirkpatrick, M. J. theor. Biol. 119, 263–271 (1986).
Charlesworth, B. in Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives (eds Bradbury, J. W. & Andersson, M. B.) 21–40 (Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1987).
Rice, W. R. Evolution 42, 817–819 (1988).
Seger, J. & Trivers, R. L. Nature 319, 771–773 (1986).
Lande, R. Evolution 36, 213–223 (1982).
Charlesworth, B. J. theor. Biol. 130, 191–204 (1988).
Møller, A. P. Ecology 71, 2345–2357 (1990).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kirkpatrick, M., Ryan, M. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350, 33–38 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1038/350033a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/350033a0
This article is cited by
-
Survival of the luckiest
International Review of Economics (2024)
-
Sex differences in song syntax and syllable diversity in testosterone-induced songs of adult male and female canaries
Biology of Sex Differences (2023)
-
Quantitative genetics of breeding coloration in sand lizards; genic capture unlikely to maintain additive genetic variance
Heredity (2023)
-
Migratory behavior of aggregating male Tiger Grouper (Mycteroperca tigris) in Little Cayman, Cayman Islands
Environmental Biology of Fishes (2023)
-
Lack of Female Preference for Nuptial Gifts May Have Led to Loss of the Male Sexual Trait
Evolutionary Biology (2023)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.