TY  - JOUR
N2  - Why are there so few small secondary sexual characters? Theoretical models predict that sexual selection should lead to reduction as often as exaggeration, and yet we mainly associate secondary sexual ornaments with exaggerated features such as the peacock's tail. We review the literature on mate choice experiments for evidence of reduced sexual traits. This shows that reduced ornamentation is effectively impossible in certain types of ornamental traits (behavioral, pheromonal, or color-based traits, and morphological ornaments for which the natural selection optimum is no trait), but that there are many examples of morphological traits that would permit reduction. Yet small sexual traits are very rarely seen. We analyze a simple mathematical model of Fisher's runaway process (the null model for sexual selection). Our analysis shows that the imbalance cannot be wholly explained by larger ornaments being less costly than smaller ornaments, nor by preferences for larger ornaments being less costly than preferences for smaller ornaments. Instead, we suggest that asymmetry in signaling efficacy limits runaway to trait exaggeration.
ID  - discovery1413258
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/evo.12255
JF  - Evolution
A1  - Tazzyman, SJ
A1  - Iwasa, Y
A1  - Pomiankowski, A
KW  - Fisher's runaway
KW  -  mate choice
KW  -  mate preference
KW  -  sexual dimorphism
KW  -  sexual ornament
KW  -  sexual selection
TI  - SIGNALING EFFICACY DRIVES THE EVOLUTION OF LARGER SEXUAL ORNAMENTS BY SEXUAL SELECTION.
SP  - 216
AV  - public
VL  - 68
Y1  - 2014/01//
EP  - 229
IS  - 1
N1  - © 2013 The Authors. Evolution published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The Society for the Study of Evolution.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited.
ER  -