Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2012 Aug 19;367(1600):2253-65.
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0285.

Aesthetic evolution by mate choice: Darwin's really dangerous idea

Affiliations
Review

Aesthetic evolution by mate choice: Darwin's really dangerous idea

Richard O Prum. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. .

Abstract

Darwin proposed an explicitly aesthetic theory of sexual selection in which he described mate preferences as a 'taste for the beautiful', an 'aesthetic capacity', etc. These statements were not merely colourful Victorian mannerisms, but explicit expressions of Darwin's hypothesis that mate preferences can evolve for arbitrarily attractive traits that do not provide any additional benefits to mate choice. In his critique of Darwin, A. R. Wallace proposed an entirely modern mechanism of mate preference evolution through the correlation of display traits with male vigour or viability, but he called this mechanism natural selection. Wallace's honest advertisement proposal was stridently anti-Darwinian and anti-aesthetic. Most modern sexual selection research relies on essentially the same Neo-Wallacean theory renamed as sexual selection. I define the process of aesthetic evolution as the evolution of a communication signal through sensory/cognitive evaluation, which is most elaborated through coevolution of the signal and its evaluation. Sensory evaluation includes the possibility that display traits do not encode information that is being assessed, but are merely preferred. A genuinely Darwinian, aesthetic theory of sexual selection requires the incorporation of the Lande-Kirkpatrick null model into sexual selection research, but also encompasses the possibility of sensory bias, good genes and direct benefits mechanisms.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Prum R. O. 1990. Phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of display behavior in the neotropical manakins (Aves: Pipridae). Ethology 84, 202–23110.1111/j.1439-0310.1990.tb00798.x (doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1990.tb00798.x) - DOI - DOI
    1. Prum R. O. 1997. Phylogenetic tests of alternative intersexual selection mechanisms: macroevolution of male traits in a polygynous clade (Aves: Pipridae). Am. Nat. 149, 668–69210.1086/286014 (doi:10.1086/286014) - DOI - DOI
    1. Prum R. O., Johnson A. E. 1987. Display behavior, foraging ecology, and systematics of the Golden-winged Manakin (Masius chrysopterus). Wilson Bull. 87, 521–539
    1. Prum R. O. 2010. The Lande–Kirkpatrick mechanism is the null model of evolution by intersexual selection: implications for meaning, honesty, and design in intersexual signals. Evolution 64, 3085–310010.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01054.x (doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.01054.x) - DOI - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lande R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 78, 3721–372510.1073/pnas.78.6.3721 (doi:10.1073/pnas.78.6.3721) - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources