Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of procbThe Royal Society PublishingProceedings BAboutBrowse by SubjectAlertsFree Trial
Proc Biol Sci. 2002 January 7; 269(1486): 97–104.
PMCID: PMC1690858

Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes.


Females often choose their mates, instead of mating at random, even when a father contributes nothing but genes to his offspring. Costly female preferences for males with exaggerated traits that reduce viability, such as the peacock's tail, are particularly puzzling. Such preferences can evolve if directly favoured by natural selection or when the exaggerated trait, although maladaptive per se, indicates high overall quality of the male's genotype. Two recent analyses suggested that the advantage to mate choice based on genetic quality is too weak to explain extreme cases of exaggeration of display traits and the corresponding preferences. We studied coevolution of a female mate-preference function and a genotype-dependent male display function where mutation supplies variation in genotype quality and mate preference is costly. Preference readily evolves, often causing extreme exaggeration of the display. Mate choice and trait expression can approach an equilibrium, or a limit cycle, or exaggeration can proceed forever, eventually causing extinction.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (324K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Agrawal AF. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature. 2001 Jun 7;411(6838):692–695. [PubMed]
  • Hamilton WD, Zuk M. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science. 1982 Oct 22;218(4570):384–387. [PubMed]
  • Houle D. Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics. 1992 Jan;130(1):195–204. [PubMed]
  • Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A. Continual change in mate preferences. Nature. 1995 Oct 5;377(6548):420–422. [PubMed]
  • Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J Theor Biol. 1999 Sep 7;200(1):97–109. [PubMed]
  • Kimura M, Maruyama T. The mutational load with epistatic gene interactions in fitness. Genetics. 1966 Dec;54(6):1337–1351. [PubMed]
  • Kirkpatrick M, Barton NH. The strength of indirect selection on female mating preferences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Feb 18;94(4):1282–1286. [PubMed]
  • Kondrashov AS. Selection against harmful mutations in large sexual and asexual populations. Genet Res. 1982 Dec;40(3):325–332. [PubMed]
  • Kondrashov AS. Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction. Nature. 1988 Dec 1;336(6198):435–440. [PubMed]
  • Kondrashov AS. Deleterious mutations as an evolutionary factor. III. Mating preference and some general remarks. J Theor Biol. 1988 Apr 21;131(4):487–496. [PubMed]
  • MULLER HJ. Our load of mutations. Am J Hum Genet. 1950 Jun;2(2):111–176. [PubMed]
  • Siller S. Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature. 2001 Jun 7;411(6838):689–692. [PubMed]
  • Zahavi A. Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol. 1975 Sep;53(1):205–214. [PubMed]
  • Zahavi A. The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). J Theor Biol. 1977 Aug 7;67(3):603–605. [PubMed]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society