Sexual selection according to Darwin: A response to Padian and Horner's interpretation

The interpretation of exaggerated structures in the vertebrate fossil record has been hampered by disagreement over the definition of sexual selection and how it relates to sexual dimorphism. Previous assertions that Darwin placed a requirement of sexual dimorphism on sexual selection are mistaken. Instead, Darwin describes variation within one sex and the exertion of a struggle (expressed as intrasexual competition, intersexual mate choice, or both) as the necessary components of sexual selection. The use of structures by one sex to attract mates or repel rivals for mates occurs independently of any existing sexual differences. Differential mating success is also a requirement of Darwinian sexual selection. Mutual sexual selection is a legitimate concept that was described by Darwin. Sexual selection remains a viable explanatory hypothesis for the presence of exaggerated structures of extinct organisms and need not be dismissed summarily, but should not be employed without support as a default hypothesis.     

Darwin's sexual selection: Understanding his ideas in context

Darwin's writings need to be seen in their fullness, as opposed to quote-mining individual sentences without the context of his passages. Sometimes Darwin wrote at length, apparently favorably, about ideas that he subsequently undermined, replacing them with a more integrative view that reflected his own broad compass. Darwin understood that nature is not simple, that not all members of a group may have evolved under the same selective regime, and that variation of all kinds is fundamental to selection in its several forms. Sexual selection requires sexual dimorphism; it is not centred on variation within sexes but on selection for the ability to acquire mates. “Mutual sexual selection” was rejected by Darwin for every species except humans. Mating success is not a matter of mere numbers but of the transmission of the most attractive features to the opposite sex. The term “sexual selection” should only be used when one sex uses a feature not present in the other sex to attract mates or repel rivals for mates.     

Microevolution of outer and inner structures of upper molars in Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene humans

In this study, we investigate outer and inner variations of upper second molars (UM2) for Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene modern humans, at a key-period in our evolutionary history associated with major sociocultural, economic and environmental changes. Non-metric traits have been recorded on 89 UM2 of 66 Upper Paleolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic individuals, and 40 UM2 have been microscanned to assess variations in enamel thickness (ET) distribution and enamel–dentine junction (EDJ) shape. Major changes are found between Mesolithic and Neolithic periods: a decrease of the metacone expression combined with an increase of the hypocone development; an increase of the heterogeneity of ET distribution between lingual and buccal cusps; and an increase of the development of the dentine horn tips corresponding to the hypocone and, to a lesser extent, to the metacone. These morphological modifications could be linked to the masticatory functional changes associated with the transition to agriculture.