Skip to main content

Chapter 19: ψ-Traits in Sexual Selection = The Evolution of Beauty

Beyond survival lies reproduction, where evolution explores aesthetics, displays, and elaborate ornaments. This chapter examines how ψ = ψ(ψ) creates traits that transcend utility through the dynamics of sexual selection.

19.1 The Sexual Selection Function​

Definition 19.1 (Reproductive Competition): Selection through mating success: Wtotal=Wsurvival×WmatingW_{\text{total}} = W_{\text{survival}} \times W_{\text{mating}}

Components:

  • Intrasexual: Competition within sex (usually males)
  • Intersexual: Choice between sexes (usually by females)

Creating traits that may compromise survival but enhance reproduction.

19.2 Darwin's Dilemma​

Theorem 19.1 (The Peacock Paradox): Ornaments evolve despite survival costs: dtˉdt>0 even when ∂Wsurvival∂t<0\frac{d\bar{t}}{dt} > 0 \text{ even when } \frac{\partial W_{\text{survival}}}{\partial t} < 0

Proof: If mating advantage exceeds survival cost, net fitness increases. ∎

Darwin recognized this challenged natural selection's sufficiency.

19.3 Bateman's Principle​

Sexual selection intensity varies by sex:

Variancemale(reproductive success)>Variancefemale(reproductive success)\text{Variance}_{\text{male}}(\text{reproductive success}) > \text{Variance}_{\text{female}}(\text{reproductive success})

Causes:

  • Anisogamy (sperm cheap, eggs expensive)
  • Parental investment asymmetry
  • Operational sex ratio
  • Multiple mating benefits

Creating stronger selection on males typically.

19.4 Fisher's Runaway Process​

Definition 19.2 (Trait-Preference Coevolution): Self-reinforcing selection:

\frac{d\bar{t}}{dt} = G_{TP} \beta_P \\ \frac{d\bar{p}}{dt} = G_{TP} \beta_T \end{aligned}$$ where $t$ is trait, $p$ is preference, $G_{TP}$ is genetic correlation. Creating: - Explosive trait elaboration - Arbitrary direction - Eventual cost limitation - Population differentiation ## 19.5 Good Genes Models Ornaments indicate genetic quality: $$t = \mu + a + e$$ where: - $\mu$ = population mean - $a$ = additive genetic value (heritable) - $e$ = environmental component **Hamilton-Zuk hypothesis**: Parasite resistance signaled **Handicap principle**: Only high-quality males afford displays ## 19.6 Sensory Bias **Theorem 19.2** (Pre-existing Preferences): Preferences precede ornaments: $$P_{\text{preference}}(t_0) > 0 \text{ before } P_{\text{trait}}(t_0) > 0$$ Examples: - Preferences for fruit colors → red ornaments - Prey detection systems → movement displays - Auditory tuning → call frequencies Traits evolve to exploit sensory systems. ## 19.7 Male-Male Competition Direct competition shapes morphology: $$W_{\text{combat}} = f(\text{Size}, \text{Weapons}, \text{Strategy})$$ **Weapons evolution**: - Antlers and horns - Enlarged canines - Spurs and claspers - Body size increase **Alternative strategies**: - Sneaker males - Satellite males - Female mimics ## 19.8 Female Choice Mechanisms **Definition 19.3** (Mate Assessment): Information gathering strategies: $$P_{\text{mating}} = f(\text{Display quality}, \text{Search costs}, \text{Options})$$ Choice mechanisms: - Threshold rules - Best-of-n sampling - Sequential assessment - Comparative evaluation Balancing information against costs. ## 19.9 Leks and Display Arenas Aggregated display sites: $$\text{Lek benefits} = \text{Reduced predation} + \text{Female efficiency} + \text{Competition intensity}$$ **Hotshot model**: Males cluster around attractive individuals **Hotspot model**: Males aggregate where females pass **Female preference**: Females prefer aggregations Creating extreme sexual selection. ## 19.10 Sexual Conflict **Theorem 19.3** (Antagonistic Coevolution): Male-female interests diverge: $$\frac{\partial W_m}{\partial t} \cdot \frac{\partial W_f}{\partial t} < 0$$ for some traits $t$. Examples: - Mating frequency - Paternal care - Remating inhibition - Genital morphology Driving rapid evolution. ## 19.11 Speciation by Sexual Selection Divergent preferences create isolation: $$\text{Preference}_A \times \text{Trait}_A > \text{Preference}_A \times \text{Trait}_B$$ $$\text{Preference}_B \times \text{Trait}_B > \text{Preference}_B \times \text{Trait}_A$$ **Consequences**: - Rapid behavioral isolation - Morphological divergence - No ecological differentiation needed - Explosive radiations ## 19.12 The Beauty Paradox Sexual selection creates seemingly arbitrary beauty: **Paradox**: Ornaments appear wasteful yet are universal **Function**: But waste may be the point (handicap) **Direction**: Evolution of aesthetics seems random **Consistency**: Yet patterns emerge across taxa **Resolution**: Sexual selection reveals ψ exploring the space of possible signals—testing what captures attention, what transmits information, what stimulates preference. The arbitrariness is only apparent; beneath lies deep structure. Symmetry, complexity, novelty, and intensity appear repeatedly because they effectively stimulate nervous systems shaped by selection. Beauty emerges not as luxury but as necessity—the necessity of standing out in the competition for mates. Through sexual selection, ψ discovers that survival is not enough; to truly persist, lineages must also attract. ## The Nineteenth Echo Sexual selection unveils evolution's aesthetic dimension—where ψ transcends mere functionality to explore beauty, display, and attraction. In the peacock's tail and the bowerbird's art, in the nightingale's song and the firefly's flash, we see life pursuing excellence beyond necessity. This sexual theater drives some of evolution's most spectacular innovations, proving that reproduction's requirements can push organisms far beyond survival's demands. Through mate choice and competition, ψ discovers that being is not enough—one must also appeal. *Next: Chapter 20 explores Gene Flow and Lineage ψ-Permeability, examining how genetic information moves between populations.*