Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek

Nature volume 350, pages 33–38 (1991)Cite this article

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

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hamilton, W. D. & Zuk, M. Science 218, 384–387 (1982).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bradbury, J. W. & Andersson, M. B. (eds) Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives (Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1987).

  3. Kirkpatrick, M. A. Rev. ecol. Syst. 18, 43–70 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. O'Donald, P. Genetic Models of Sexual Selection (Cambridge University Press, 1980).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Lande, R. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 78, 3721–3725 (1981).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kirkpatrick, M. Evolution 36, 1–12 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Seger, J. Evolution 39, 1185–1193 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gomulkiewicz, R. S. & Hastings, A. Evolution 44, 757–770 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barton, N. H. & Turelli, M. Genetics 127, 229–255 (1991).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Fisher, R. A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection 2nd Edn (Dover, New York, 1958).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Parker, G. A. in Mate Choice (ed. Bateson, P.) 141–166 (Cambridge University Press, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kirkpatrick, M. Am. Nat. 125, 788–810 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Andersson, M. Evolution 40, 804–816 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pomiankowski, A. J. theor. Biol. 128, 195–218 (1987).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Curtsinger, J. W. & Heisler, I. L. Am. Nat. 132, 437–453 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bulmer, M. Theor. Pop. Biol. 35, 195–206 (1989).

    Article  MathSciNet  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Heywood, J. S. Evolution 43, 1387–1397 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Grafen, A. J. theor. Biol. 144, 473–516 (1990).

    Article  MathSciNet  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Trivers, R. L. in Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man (ed. Campbell, B.) 136–179 (Aldine, Chicago, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Zahavi, A. J. theor. Biol. 53, 205–214 (1975).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pomiankowski, A. Oxford Surv. evol. Biol. 5, 136–184 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Maynard-Smith, J. J. theor. Biol. 115, 1–8 (1985).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Thornhill, R. Am. Nat. 122, 765–788 (1983).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Price, T. D. Evolution 38, 327–341 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lightbody, J. P. & Weatherhead, P. J. Am. Nat. 132, 20–33 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ryan, M. J. Oxford Surv. evol. Biol. 7, 156–195 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Endler, J. A. in Speciation and Its Consequences (eds Otte, D. & Endler, J. A.) 625–648 (Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fleichman, L. Am. Nat. (in the press).

  29. Christy, J. Ethology 78, 113–128 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nevo, E. & Capranica, R. R. Evol. Biol. 19, 147–214 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Robertson, J. G. Anim. Behav. 39, 639–645 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Markow, T. A., Quaid, M. & Kerr, S. Nature 276, 821–822 (1978).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  33. Borgia, G. & Collis, K. Am. Zool. 30, 279–285 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Møller, A. P. J. evol. Biol. 3, 319–328 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Reynolds, J. D. & Gross, M. R. Am. Nat. 136, 230–243 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ryan, M. J. The Túngara Frog, a Study in Sexual Selection and Communication (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Basolo, A. Science 230, 808–810 (1990).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  38. Ryan, M. J., Fox, J. H., Wilczynski, W. & Rand, A. S. Nature 343, 66–67 (1990).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Stoner, G. & Breden, F. Behav. ecol. Sociobiol. 22, 285–291 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Houde, A. E. & Endler, J. A. Science 248, 1405–1408 (1990).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Am. Zool. 30, 225–352 (1990).

  42. Boyce, M. S. Am. Zool. 30, 279–285 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Read, A. Nature 328, 68–70 (1987).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  44. Ward, P. I. Anim. Behav. 36, 1210–1215 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Read, A. F. & Harvey, P. H. Nature 339, 618–620 (1989).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  46. Read, A. F. & Weary, D. M. Behav. ecol. Sociobiol. 26, 47–56 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Chandler, M. & Cabana, G. Oikos (in the press).

  48. Heisler, I. L. Genet. Res. 44, 133–149 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Majerus, M. E. N., O'Donald, P., Kearns, P. W. E. & Ireland, H. Nature 321, 164–167 (1986).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  50. Sappington, T. W. & Taylor, O. R. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 87, 6132–6135.

  51. Kirkpatrick, M. in Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives (eds Bradbury, J. W. & Andersson, M. B.) 41–53 (Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sanderson, N. Evolution 43, 1223–1235 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kirkpatrick, M. J. theor. Biol. 119, 263–271 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Charlesworth, B. in Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives (eds Bradbury, J. W. & Andersson, M. B.) 21–40 (Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Rice, W. R. Evolution 42, 817–819 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Seger, J. & Trivers, R. L. Nature 319, 771–773 (1986).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  57. Lande, R. Evolution 36, 213–223 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Charlesworth, B. J. theor. Biol. 130, 191–204 (1988).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Møller, A. P. Ecology 71, 2345–2357 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 78712, USA

    Mark Kirkpatrick & Michael J. Ryan

Authors
  1. Mark Kirkpatrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Ryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/350033a0

This article is cited by

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.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing