Sexual selection (Was: Developing story: Steve Gould's friend says Gould would never have signed NCSE's "Steve" list

I've always considered sexual selection a subset of natural selection. It's often separated
because it doesn't fit the traditional "survival of the fittest" framework: features such as a
peacock's tail likely reduce an individual's "fittness" as defined by survival but if it increases the
chances of being selected as a mate, it may be worth it in an evolutionary sense. But basically, it
doesn't make much difference if a trait's value comes from a longer life or more frequent
mating opportunities during a shorter life; what makes the trait adaptive is whether it increases
the chance of leaving offspring behind.
__
Louise M. Freeman, PhD
Psychology Dept
Mary Baldwin College
Staunton, VA 24401
540-887-7326
FAX 540-887-7121

> What is the actual situation? Does NS embrace sexual selection as a
> subset, as it were?
>
> ted
>
Received on Tue Oct 25 21:47:43 2005