Skip navigation

The NaturePlus Forums will be offline from mid August 2018. The content has been saved and it will always be possible to see and refer to archived posts, but not to post new items. This decision has been made in light of technical problems with the forum, which cannot be fixed or upgraded.

We'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to the very great success of the forums and to the community spirit there. We plan to create new community features and services in the future so please watch this space for developments in this area. In the meantime if you have any questions then please email:

Fossil enquiries: esid@nhm.ac.uk
Life Sciences & Mineralogy enquiries: bug@nhm.ac.uk
Commercial enquiries: ias1@nhm.ac.uk

Currently Being Moderated

Sexual selection in prehistoric animals: misidentifications and false positives

 

Prof Kevin Padian, Department of Integrative Biology & Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley

 

Tuesday 11th December 2012
Neil Chalmers Seminar Room, DC2, NHM, 1330

 

Darwin acknowledged that the roles of some morphological structures are difficult to determine.  But he was clear about what sexual selection is, and the role of sexual dimorphism in it.  Because Darwin invented sexual selection, and based it on observations that have never been falsified, his definition cannot be wrong.  It has three components: (1) it explains why sexual dimorphism exists, and its central role in sexual selection; (2) the dimorphic structures or behaviours are used by one gender to attract mates or repel rivals for mates; and (3) these structures and behaviours help the bearer gain access to mates.  Strangely, palaeontologists and neontologists have largely ignored him.  Assertions of sexual selection/dimorphism in the fossil record suffer from a lack of statistical rigor and an unwillingness to test hypotheses through independent lines of evidence.  No such study has had any independent assessment of the chronological age or stage of its individuals, although such information is frequently available.  We show why much alleged sexual dimorphism in fossil tetrapods is more likely simply ontogenetic change, and why both a statistically significant population sample and an independent assessment of age of specimens are needed before the hypothesis of sexual dimorphism can be tested.

 

 

For additional details on attending this or other seminars see http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/seminars-events/index.html

Comments (0)