Why do females find ornaments attractive? The coercion‐avoidance hypothesis
Why do females find ornaments attractive? The coercion‐avoidance hypothesis
复制标题
为什么女性觉得装饰品有吸引力？
DOI：
10.1111/j.1095-8312.2008.01131.x
复制
发表时间：
2009
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
C. P. Schaik
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Pradhan;C. P. Schaik
脊椎动物有两大类两性异形特征：武器和装饰。然而，达尔文无法解释为什么它们的表达在不同的谱系中变化如此之大。我们认为，避刺可以解释装饰物的存在和分类分布。当雌性可以自由选择配偶时，它们的适应能力最大化，而雄性则被期望使用两性武器，不仅取代其他雄性，而且克服雌性的偏好，从而在任何可能的情况下通过武力获得交配。因此，女性应避免胁迫男性，并尽可能避免使用武器作为男性质量的标准，并依赖于不能用来胁迫女性的男性生存能力指标（即装饰品）。鸟类中鸟类占主导地位，哺乳动物中的武器占主导地位，因为鸟类中女性的选择成本较低，这是由于女性内在的行为自由度较高，男性垄断潜力较低。我们还预测，专门的强制性机关发生在女性有低的行为自由，但男性受益于武器在男性-男性比赛。对经验证据的回顾支持了这一回避假设的基本预测。我们还提出了一个简单的数学模型，证实了这一假设的逻辑。© 2009伦敦林奈学会，林奈学会生物学杂志，2009年，96，372-382。
Vertebrates show two major classes of sexually dimorphic traits: weaponry and ornaments. However, Darwin could not explain why their expression varies so much across lineages. We argue that coercion-avoidance can explain both the existence and taxonomic distribution of ornaments. Females maximize their fitness when they can freely choose their mates, but males are expected to use sexually dimorphic weaponry not only to displace other males, but also to overcome female preferences and thus acquire matings by force whenever they can. Females should therefore avoid coercive males and avoid using weaponry as a criterion for male quality wherever possible, and rely on male viability indicators that cannot be used to coerce females (i.e. ornaments). Ornaments predominate in birds and weaponry in mammals because female choice is less costly in birds, due to higher intrinsic female behavioural freedom and lower male monopolization potential. We also predict that specialized coercive organs occur where females have low behavioural freedom but males benefit little from weaponry in male–male contests. A review of the empirical evidence supports the basic predictions of this coercion-avoidance hypothesis. We also present a simple mathematical model that confirms the logic of this hypothesis. © 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 96, 372–382.