Cichlid spawning structures – bowers or nests?

Males of mouthbrooding cichlids build sand-castle or sand-scrape structures. These are used as display sites to attract females, eggs are laid and inseminated there and then taken away by the female for brooding elsewhere. It has been suggested that the structure be called a bower because it has the same role as the bowerbird's bower. Thew word bower is restricted in ornithological literature to complex structures which reminded Gould (1840) of garden bowers. Simpler display sites of other bowerbirds and other bird families are called courts. Bowerbirds use separate nests for egg-laying, cichlids do not. Other birds, e.g. many weavers, use nests for display purposes. The cichlid structure is the same as nests used by other non mouthbrooding fishes, but mouthbrooding has freed females from the need to stay in the nest. It is unacceptable to use the word bower for the cichlid structure because it is not a bower as defined in ornithological literature, and it is used for egg laying as well as display. Weaver birds use nests for display in a similar way to cichlids, thus the word nest should be retained for the cichlid sand structure. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Primates, brains and ecology

The paper examines systematic relationships among primates between brain size (relative to body size) and differences in ecology and social system. Marked differences in relative brain size exist between families. These are correlated with inter-family differences in body size and home range size. Variation in comparative brain size within families is related to diet (folivores have comparatively smaller brains than frugivores), home range size and possibly also to breeding system. The adaptive significance of these relationships is discussed.     

Teeth, brains, and primate life histories

This paper explores the correlates of variation in dental development across the order Primates. We are particularly interested in how 1) dental precocity (percentage of total postcanine primary and secondary teeth that have erupted at selected absolute ages and life cycle stages) and 2) dental endowment at weaning (percentage of adult postcanine occlusal area that is present at weaning) are related to variation in body or brain size and diet in primates. We ask whether folivores have more accelerated dental schedules than do like-sized frugivores, and if so, to what extent this is part and parcel of a general pattern of acceleration of life histories in more folivorous taxa. What is the adaptive significance of variation in dental eruption schedules across the order Primates? We show that folivorous primate species tend to exhibit more rapid dental development (on an absolute scale) than comparably sized frugivores, and their dental development tends to be more advanced at weaning. Our data affirm an important role for brain (rather than body) size as a predictor of both absolute and relative dental development. Tests of alternative dietary hypotheses offer the strongest support for the foraging independence and food processing hypotheses.     

Genes, brains and mammalian social bonds

Recent studies of monogamous species have revealed the role of the neuropeptides oxytocin and vasopressin in activating reward mechanisms of the brain that are involved in establishing partner recognition and selective 'bonding'. The evolutionary history of these findings resides, at a mechanistic level, in the reciprocal bonding between mother and infant that is common to all mammals. However, in Old World primates, where mother and infant alone would not survive, living in large social groups brings extended family relationships and provides for alloparenting. This has required the emancipation of parenting behaviour from the constraints of hormonal state and the evolution of large brains for decision making that was previously restricted and determined by hormonal state. How this has been achieved, what conserved mechanisms underpin social bonding, and what genetic and mechanistic changes have occurred in the evolution of social bonds are the issues addressed here.     

Small brains, bright minds

Learning, memory, and social behavior are innate properties of the honeybee that are essential for the survival of each individual as well as for the survival of the hive. The small, accessible brain of the honeybee and the availability of the complete sequence of its genome make this social insect an ideal model for studying the connection between learning, memory, and social behavior.     

Sex,immunity, and cancer

The composition of the tumor microenvironment is the complex result of the interaction between tumoral and host factors. Since there are several differences in the regulation of gene circuits between sexes, mainly influenced by sex hormones, the tumor-host interaction presents some differences, leading tumors to evolve under different conditions. Nowadays, it is well known the existence of sexual dimorphism in the regulation of the immune system, where women present an improved immunity to various infectious agents and, on the other hand, a higher incidence of autoimmune diseases than men. In oncology, differences in cancer susceptibility, response to treatment, and clinical outcomes between men and women patients are well known. Recently, sex-specific differences have also been reported in mutations in driver genes and the prognostic value of several biomarkers. Sex has been a widely forgotten biomarker in cancer therapy, but it has recently acquired great relevance due to the different results seen in immunotherapy treatment.     

Sex,gender, and difference

Empirical research has demonstrated that women’s aggressive behavior is widespread and displays regularities across societies. Until recently, however, discussions about the aggressive behavior of women and gender differences in aggressive behavior have been based largely on data from nonhuman primates, children, or laboratory experiments. Using a unique corpus of naturalistic data on aggressive human interactions both between and among men and women, I explore the complexity of our questions about sex differences in aggression and further illuminate the ways in which men and women may use aggression in human interactions. In this paper I compare the aggressive behavior of men and women in an Australian Aboriginal community. In doing so I argue for the continuing use of a “sex differences” framework for organizing our understanding of gender relations and gender hierarchy. I believe, however, that this form of analysis benefits from, if not requires, a sensitivity to the most taken-for-granted aspects of our gender ideology and a commitment to attend to evidence that challenges our convictions about men and women.     

Sex, Meiosis and Multicellularity

The origin and progress of multicellularity, which is one of the crucial steps in the evolution of life, remains unclear and stringent phylogenetic reconstruction of the process is difficult. However, further theoretical considerations of the problem could be useful for the creation of a verifiable hypothesis. Sex as a ubiquitous biological phenomenon is usually considered as something entirely linked with reproduction. This is mostly true for modem multicellular organisms, but at the earliest stage of evolution of eukaryotes it was not so. At that time the sexual process had nothing to do with reproduction, and only later, sex and reproduction merged together.One of the aims of this paper is to consider the sexual process as a likely basis for the establishment of multicellularity and to discuss the early stages of evolution of the multicellularity from this perspective. It is suggested that mitotic reproduction of cells at different stages of the sexual cycle of unicellular ancestors might be the starting points for independent transition to multicellularity in different taxa. Numerous consequences of these transitions, including evolution of bisexuality and development of novel meiotic functions in animals, are discussed.     

Sex,mutations and marketing

Runaway consumerism imposes social and ecological costs on humans in much the same way that runaway sexual ornamentation imposes survival costs and extinction risks on other animals.Sex and marketing have been coupled for a very long time. At the cultural level, their relationship has been appreciated since the 1960s ‘Mad Men'' era, when the sexual revolution coincided with the golden age of advertising, and marketers realized that ‘sex sells''. At the biological level, their interplay goes much further back to the Cambrian explosion around 530 million years ago. During this period of rapid evolutionary expansion, multicellular organisms began to evolve elaborate sexual ornaments to advertise their genetic quality to the most important consumers of all in the great mating market of life: the opposite sex.Maintaining the genetic quality of one''s offspring had already been a problem for billions of years. Ever since life originated around 3.7 billion years ago, RNA and DNA have been under selection to copy themselves as accurately as possible [1]. Yet perfect self-replication is biochemically impossible, and almost all replication errors are harmful rather than helpful [2]. Thus, mutations have been eroding the genomic stability of single-celled organisms for trillions of generations, and countless lineages of asexual organisms have suffered extinction through mutational meltdown—the runaway accumulation of copying errors [3]. Only through wildly profligate self-cloning could such organisms have any hope of leaving at least a few offspring with no new harmful mutations, so they could best survive and reproduce.Around 1.5 billion years ago, bacteria evolved the most basic form of sex to minimize mutation load: bacterial conjugation [4]. By swapping bits of DNA across the pilus (a tiny intercellular bridge) a bacterium can replace DNA sequences compromised by copying errors with intact sequences from its peers. Bacteria finally had some defence against mutational meltdown, and they thrived and diversified.Then, with the evolution of genuine sexual reproduction through meiosis, perhaps around 1.2 billion years ago, eukaryotes made a great advance in their ability to purge mutations. By combining their genes with a mate''s genes, they could produce progeny with huge genetic variety—and crucially with a wider range of mutation loads [5]. The unlucky offspring who happened to inherit an above-average number of harmful mutations from both parents would die young without reproducing, taking many mutations into oblivion with them. The lucky offspring who happened to inherit a below-average number of mutations from both parents would live long, prosper and produce offspring of higher genetic quality. Sexual recombination also made it easier to spread and combine the rare mutations that happened to be useful, opening the way for much faster evolutionary advances [6]. Sex became the foundation of almost all complex life because it was so good at both short-term damage limitation (purging bad mutations) and long-term innovation (spreading good mutations).Sex became the foundation of almost all complex life because it was so good at both short-term damage limitation […] and long-term innovation…Yet, single-celled organisms always had a problem with sex: they were not very good at choosing sexual partners with the best genes, that is, the lowest mutation loads. Given bacterial capabilities for chemical communication such as quorum-sensing [7], perhaps some prokaryotes and eukaryotes paid attention to short-range chemical cues of genetic quality before swapping genes. However, mating was mainly random before the evolution of longer-range senses and nervous systems.All of this changed profoundly with the Cambrian explosion, which saw organisms undergoing a genetic revolution that increased the complexity of gene regulatory networks, and a morphological revolution that increased the diversity of multicellular body plans. It was also a neurological and psychological revolution. As organisms became increasingly mobile, they evolved senses such as vision [8] and more complex nervous systems [9] to find food and evade predators. However, these new senses also empowered a sexual revolution, as they gave animals new tools for choosing sexual partners. Rather than hooking up randomly with the nearest mate, animals could now select mates based on visible cues of genetic quality such as body size, energy level, bright coloration and behavioural competence. By choosing the highest quality mates, they could produce higher quality offspring with lower mutation loads [10]. Such mate choice imposed selection on all of those quality cues to become larger, brighter and more conspicuous, amplifying them into true sexual ornaments: biological luxury goods such as the guppy''s tail and the peacock''s train that function mainly to impress and attract females [11]. These sexual ornaments evolved to have a complex genetic architecture, to capture a larger share of the genetic variation across individuals and to reveal mutation load more accurately [12].Ever since the Cambrian, the mating market for sexually reproducing animal species has been transformed to some degree into a consumerist fantasy world of conspicuous quality, status, fashion, beauty and romance. Individuals advertise their genetic quality and phenotypic condition through reliable, hard-to-fake signals or ‘fitness indicators'' such as pheromones, songs, ornaments and foreplay. Mates are chosen on the basis of who displays the largest, costliest, most precise, most popular and most salient fitness indicators. Mate choice for fitness indicators is not restricted to females choosing males, but often occurs in both sexes [13], especially in socially monogamous species with mutual mate choice such as humans [14].Thus, for 500 million years, animals have had to straddle two worlds in perpetual tension: natural selection and sexual selection. Each type of selection works through different evolutionary principles and dynamics, and each yields different types of adaptation and biodiversity. Neither fully dominates the other, because sexual attractiveness without survival is a short-lived vanity, whereas ecological competence without reproduction is a long-lived sterility. Natural selection shapes species to fit their geographical habitats and ecological niches, and favours efficiency in growth, foraging, parasite resistance, predator evasion and social competition. Sexual selection shapes each sex to fit the needs, desires and whims of the other sex, and favours conspicuous extravagance in all sorts of fitness indicators. Animal life walks a fine line between efficiency and opulence. More than 130,000 plant species also play the sexual ornamentation game, having evolved flowers to attract pollinators [15].The sexual selection world challenges the popular misconception that evolution is blind and dumb. In fact, as Darwin emphasized, sexual selection is often perceptive and clever, because animal senses and brains mediate mate choice. This makes sexual selection closer in spirit to artificial selection, which is governed by the senses and brains of human breeders. In so far as sexual selection shaped human bodies, minds and morals, we were also shaped by intelligent designers—who just happened to be romantic hominids rather than fictional gods [16].Thus, mate choice for genetic quality is analogous in many ways to consumer choice for brand quality [17]. Mate choice and consumer choice are both semi-conscious—partly instinctive, partly learned through trial and error and partly influenced by observing the choices made by others. Both are partly focused on the objective qualities and useful features of the available options, and partly focused on their arbitrary, aesthetic and fashionable aspects. Both create the demand that suppliers try to understand and fulfil, with each sex striving to learn the mating preferences of the other, and marketers striving to understand consumer preferences through surveys, focus groups and social media data mining.…single-celled organisms always had a problem with sex: they were not very good at choosing the sexual partners with the best genes…Mate choice and consumer choice can both yield absurdly wasteful outcomes: a huge diversity of useless, superficial variations in the biodiversity of species and the economic diversity of brands, products and packaging. Most biodiversity seems to be driven by sexual selection favouring whimsical differences across populations in the arbitrary details of fitness indicators, not just by naturally selected adaptation to different ecological niches [18]. The result is that within each genus, a species can be most easily identified by its distinct mating calls, sexual ornaments, courtship behaviours and genital morphologies [19], not by different foraging tactics or anti-predator defences. Similarly, much of the diversity in consumer products—such as shirts, cars, colleges or mutual funds—is at the level of arbitrary design details, branding, packaging and advertising, not at the level of objective product features and functionality.These analogies between sex and marketing run deep, because both depend on reliable signals of quality. Until recently, two traditions of signalling theory developed independently in the biological and social sciences. The first landmark in biological signalling theory was Charles Darwin''s analysis of mate choice for sexual ornaments as cues of good fitness and fertility in his book, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871). Ronald Fisher analysed the evolution of mate preferences for fitness indicators in 1915 [20]. Amotz Zahavi proposed the ‘handicap principle'', arguing that only costly signals could be reliable, hard-to-fake indicators of genetic quality or phenotypic condition in 1975 [21]. Richard Dawkins and John Krebs applied game theory to analyse the reliability of animal signals, and the co-evolution of signallers and receivers in 1978 [22]. In 1990, Alan Grafen eventually proposed a formal model of the ‘handicap principle'' [23], and Richard Michod and Oren Hasson analysed ‘reliable indicators of fitness'' [24]. Since then, biological signalling theory has flourished and has informed research on sexual selection, animal communication and social behaviour.…new senses also empowered a sexual revolution […] Rather than hooking up randomly with the nearest mate, animals could now select mates based on visible cues of genetic quality…The parallel tradition of signalling theory in the social sciences and philosophy goes back to Aristotle, who argued that ethical and rational acts are reliable signals of underlying moral and cognitive virtues (ca 350–322 BC). Friedrich Nietzsche analysed beauty, creativity, morality and even cognition as expressions of biological vigour by using signalling logic (1872–1888). Thorstein Veblen proposed that conspicuous luxuries, quality workmanship and educational credentials act as reliable signals of wealth, effort and taste in The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), The Instinct of Workmanship (1914) and The Higher Learning in America (1922). Vance Packard used signalling logic to analyse social class, runaway consumerism and corporate careerism in The Status Seekers (1959), The Waste Makers (1960) and The Pyramid Climbers (1962), and Ernst Gombrich analysed beauty in art as a reliable signal of the artist''s skill and effort in Art and Illusion (1977) and A Sense of Order (1979). Michael Spence developed formal models of educational credentials as reliable signals of capability and conscientiousness in Market Signalling (1974). Robert Frank used signalling logic to analyse job titles, emotions, career ambitions and consumer luxuries in Choosing the Right Pond (1985), Passions within Reason (1988), The Winner-Take-All-Society (1995) and Luxury Fever (2000).Evolutionary psychology and evolutionary anthropology have been integrating these two traditions to better understand many puzzles in human evolution that defy explanation in terms of natural selection for survival. For example, signalling theory has illuminated the origins and functions of facial beauty, female breasts and buttocks, body ornamentation, clothing, big game hunting, hand-axes, art, music, humour, poetry, story-telling, courtship gifts, charity, moral virtues, leadership, status-seeking, risk-taking, sports, religion, political ideologies, personality traits, adaptive self-deception and consumer behaviour [16,17,25,26,27,28,29].Building on signalling theory and sexual selection theory, the new science of evolutionary consumer psychology [30] has been making big advances in understanding consumer goods as reliable signals—not just signals of monetary wealth and elite taste, but signals of deeper traits such as intelligence, moral virtues, mating strategies and the ‘Big Five'' personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion and emotional stability [17]. These individual traits are deeper than wealth and taste in several ways: they are found in the other great apes, are heritable across generations, are stable across life, are important in all cultures and are naturally salient when interacting with mates, friends and kin [17,27,31]. For example, consumers seek elite university degrees as signals of intelligence; they buy organic fair-trade foods as signals of agreeableness; and they value foreign travel and avant-garde culture as signals of openness [17]. New molecular genetics research suggests that mutation load accounts for much of the heritable variation in human intelligence [32] and personality [33], so consumerist signals of these traits might be revealing genetic quality indirectly. If so, conspicuous consumption can be seen as just another ‘good-genes indicator'' favoured by mate choice.…sexual attractiveness without survival is a short-lived vanity, whereas ecological competence without reproduction is a long-lived sterilityIndeed, studies suggest that much conspicuous consumption, especially by young single people, functions as some form of mating effort. After men and women think about potential dates with attractive mates, men say they would spend more money on conspicuous luxury goods such as prestige watches, whereas women say they would spend more time doing conspicuous charity activities such as volunteering at a children''s hospital [34]. Conspicuous consumption by males reveals that they are pursuing a short-term mating strategy [35], and this activity is most attractive to women at peak fertility near ovulation [36]. Men give much higher tips to lap dancers who are ovulating [37]. Ovulating women choose sexier and more revealing clothes, shoes and fashion accessories [38]. Men living in towns with a scarcity of women compete harder to acquire luxuries and accumulate more consumer debt [39]. Romantic gift-giving is an important tactic in human courtship and mate retention, especially for men who might be signalling commitment [40]. Green consumerism—preferring eco-friendly products—is an effective form of conspicuous conservation, signalling both status and altruism [41].Findings such as these challenge traditional assumptions in economics. For example, ever since the Marginal Revolution—the development of economic theory during the 1870s—mainstream economics has made the ‘Rational Man'' assumption that consumers maximize their expected utility from their product choices, without reference to what other consumers are doing or desiring. This assumption was convenient both analytically—as it allowed easier mathematical modelling of markets and price equilibria—and ideologically in legitimizing free markets and luxury goods. However, new research from evolutionary consumer psychology and behavioural economics shows that consumers often desire ‘positional goods'' such as prestige-branded luxuries that signal social position and status through their relative cost, exclusivity and rarity. Positional goods create ‘positional externalities''—the harmful social side-effects of runaway status-seeking and consumption arms races [42].…biodiversity seems driven by sexual selection favouring whimsical differences […] Similarly […] diversity in consumer products […] is at the level of arbitrary design…These positional externalities are important because they undermine the most important theoretical justification for free markets—the first fundamental theorem of welfare economics, a formalization of Adam Smith''s ‘invisible hand'' argument, which says that competitive markets always lead to efficient distributions of resources. In the 1930s, the British Marxist biologists Julian Huxley and J.B.S. Haldane were already wary of such rationales for capitalism, and understood that runaway consumerism imposes social and ecological costs on humans in much the same way that runaway sexual ornamentation imposes survival costs and extinction risks on other animals [16]. Evidence shows that consumerist status-seeking leads to economic inefficiencies and costs to human welfare [42]. Runaway consumerism might be one predictable result of a human nature shaped by sexual selection, but we can display desirable traits in many other ways, such as green consumerism, conspicuous charity, ethical investment and through social media such as Facebook [17,43].Future work in evolutionary consumer psychology should give further insights into the links between sex, mutations, evolution and marketing. These links have been important for at least 500 million years and probably sparked the evolution of human intelligence, language, creativity, beauty, morality and ideology. A better understanding of these links could help us nudge global consumerist capitalism into a more sustainable form that imposes lower costs on the biosphere and yields higher benefits for future generations.? Open in a separate windowGeoffrey Miller     

Sex, death and tragedy

The population consequences of sexual conflict are relatively unexplored. In a recent paper, Le Galliard et al. now show that males of the common lizard Lacerta vivipara cause such damage to females that male-biased populations decrease in size, posing a real risk to the persistence of local lizard populations. Their study reveals surprising parallels between sexual conflict and the tragedy of the commons, where selfish competition over females destroys the very resource (i.e. the females) over which the males are fighting.