Abstract
“Fisherian” models of sexual selection by female choice assume that females prefer male characters which are initially advantageous or neutral ; character and preference then spread through the population. Once female preference has evolved to a higher frequency, the male character can become more extreme and disadvantageous by the action of some force such as the “ super-normal stimulus”. By contrast, the “handicap principle” of sexual selection proposes that females should prefer more extreme, disadvantaged males: males who survive the disadvantage of the “handicap” must be fitter in other respects. Previous models of various forms of the “handicap principle” have shown that it is very unlikely to work as an alternative to the “Fisherian process”. However, recent haploid models have shown that a “condition-dependent handicap” might evolve. Diploid models show that the “condition-dependent handicap” model does not work. Models of “handicaps”operating together with the “Fisherian process” are also presented. It is inferred that “Fisherian” models are more likely than “handicap” models to account for the evolution of male sexual ornaments, although a “handicap” mechanism may aid the operation of the “Fisherian process”.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
References
Andersson, M. 1982. Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement. Biol J Linn Soc, 17, 375–393.
Andersson, M. 1986a. Sexual selection and the importance of viability differences: a reply. J theor Biol, 120, 251–254.
Andersson, M. 1986b. Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences; sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution, 40, 804–816.
Andersson, M. 1987. Genetic models of sexual selection: some aims, assumptions and tests. Bradbury, J. W. and Andersson, M. (eds). In Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives. Dahlem Konferenzen. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.
Bell, G. 1978. The handicap principle in sexual selection. Evolution, 32, 872–885.
Darwin, C. 1871. The Descent of Manand Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray, London.
Davis, J W F, and O'Donald, P. 1976. Sexual selection for a handicap: a critical analysis of Zahavi's model. J theor Biol, 57, 345–354.
Endler, J A. 1983. Natural and sexual selection on colour patterns in poeciliid fishes. Env Biol Fishes, 9, 173–190.
Eshel, I. 1978. On the handicap principle—a critical defence. J theor Biol, 70, 245–250
Fisher, R A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. The Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Hamilton, W D, and Zuk, M. 1982. Heritable true fitness and bright birds; a role for parasites? Science, 218, 384–387.
Jones, J S. 1987. The heritability of fitness: bad news for “good genes”? Trends Ecol Evol, 2, 35–38.
Kirkpatrick, M. 1982. Sexual selectionand the evolution of female choice. Evolution, 36, 1–12.
Kirkpatrick, M. 1986a. Sexual selection and cycling parasites: a simulation study of Hamilton's hypothesis. J theor Biol, 119, 263–271.
Kirkpatrick, M. 1986b. The handicap mechanism of sexual selection does not work. Amer Natur, 127, 222–240.
Mackay, T F C. 1986. A quantitative genetic analysis of fitness and its components in Drosophila melanogaster. Genet Res, 47, 59–70.
Marjerus, M E N. 1986. The genetics and evolution of female choice. Trends Ecol Evol, 1, 1–7.
Maynard Smith, J. 1956. Fertility, mating behaviour and sexual selection in Drosophila subobscura. J Genet, 54, 261–279.
Mayanard Smith, J. 1976a. The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mayanard Smith, J. 1976b. Sexual selection and the handicap principle. J theor Biol, 57, 239–242.
Mayanard Smith, J. 1978. The handicap principle—a comment. J theor Biol, 70, 251–252.
Mayanard Smith, J. 1985. Sexual selection, handicaps and true fitness. Jtheor Biol, 115, 1–8.
O'Donald, P. 1980. Genetic Models of Sexual Selection. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
O'Donald, P. 1983. The Arctic Skua. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
O'Donald, P. Derrick, M. Majerus, M E N, and Weir, J. 1984. Population genetic theory of the assortative mating, sexual selection and natural selection of the two-spot ladybird Adalia bipunctata. Heredity, 52, 43–61.
Partridge, L. 1980. Mate choice increases a component of offspring fitness in fruit flies. Nature, 283, 290–291.
Partridge, L, and Harvey, P. 1986. Contentious issues in sexual selection. Nature, 323, 580–581.
Pomiankowski, A. 1987. Sexual selection: the handicap principle does work—sometimes. Proc R Soc Lond B, 231, 123–145
Read, A F. 1987. Comparative evidence supports the Hamilton and Zuk hypothesis on parasites and sexual selection. Nature, 328, 68–70.
Staddon, J E R. 1975. A note on the evolutionary significance of “supernormal stimuli”. Amer Natur, 109, 541–545.
West-Eberhard, M J. 1979. Sexual selection, social competition and evolution. Proc Am Phil Soc, 123, 222–234.
Williams, G C. 1975. Sex and Evolution. Princeton University Press.
Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. J theor Biol, 53, 205–214.
Zahavi, A. 1977. The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). J theor Biol, 67, 603–605.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tomlinson, I. Diploid models of the handicap principle. Heredity 60, 283–293 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1988.44
Received:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.1988.44
This article is cited by
-
The influence of female viability differences on the evolution of mate choice
Heredity (1996)
-
Male mating success and survival in the field with respect to size and courtship song characters inDrosophila littoralis andD. montana (Diptera: Drosophilidae)
Journal of Insect Behavior (1995)
-
Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks
Nature (1993)


