So far in this course we have dealt entirely with the evolution of characters that are controlled by simple Mendelian inheritance at a single locus. There are notes on the course website about gametic disequilibrium and how allele frequencies change at two loci simultaneously, but we didn’t discuss them. In every example we’ve considered we’ve imagined that we could understand something about evolution by examining the evolution of a single gene. That’s the domain of classical population genetics. For the next few weeks we’re going to be exploring a field that’s actually older than classical population genetics, although the approach we’ll be taking to it involves the use of population genetic machinery. If you know a little about the history of evolutionary biology, you may know that after the rediscovery of Mendel’s work in 1900 there was a heated debate between the “biometricians” (e.g., Galton and Pearson) and the “Mendelians” (e.g., de Vries, Correns, Bateson, and Morgan). Biometricians asserted that the really important variation in evolution didn’t follow Mendelian rules. Height, weight, skin color, and similar traits seemed to

Human biochemical genetics

Fast and frugal heuristics - simple rules for making decisions with realistic mental resources - are presented here. These heuristics can enable both living organisms and artificial systems to make smart choices, classifications, and predictions by employing bounded rationality. But when and how can such fast and frugal heuristics work? What heuristics are in the mind's adaptive toolbox, and what building blocks compose them? Can judgments based simply on a single reason be as accurate as those based on many reasons? Could less knowledge even lead to systematically better predictions than more knowledge? This book explores these questions by developing computational models of heuristics and testing them through experiments and analysis. It shows how fast and frugal heuristics can yield adaptive decisions in situations as varied as choosing a mate, dividing resources among offspring, predicting high school drop-out rates, and playing the stock market.

Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart

Part I. From There to Here - Theoretical Background: 1. From visiousness to viciousness: theories of intergroup relations 2. Social dominance theory as a new synthesis Part II. Oppression and its Psycho-Ideological Elements: 3. The psychology of group dominance: social dominance orientation 4. Let's both agree that you're really stupid: the power of consensual ideology Part III. The Circle of Oppression - The Myriad Expressions of Institutional Discrimination: 5. You stay in your part of town and I'll stay in mine: discrimination in the housing and retail markets 6. They're just too lazy to work: discrimination in the labor market 7. They're just mentally and physically unfit: discrimination in education and health care 8. The more of 'them' in prison, the better: institutional terror, social control and the dynamics of the criminal justice system Part IV. Oppression as a Cooperative Game: 9. Social hierarchy and asymmetrical group behavior: social hierarchy and group difference in behavior 10. Sex and power: the intersecting political psychologies of patriarchy and empty-set hierarchy 11. Epilogue.

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/98044356.pdf

Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression

A DNA test to sex most birds.

General Themes: G.A. Parker, Sperm Competition and the Evolution of Ejaculates: Towards a Theory Base. A.P. Moller, Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection. W.G. Eberhard, Female Roles in Sperm Competition. J. Wright, Paternity and Paternal Care. Taxonomic Treatments: L.F. Delph and K. Havens, Pollen Competition in Flowering Plants. D.R. Levitan, Sperm Limitation, Gamete Competition and Sexual Selection in External Fertilizers. N.K. Michiels, Mating Conflicts and Sperm Competition in Simultaneous Hermaphrodites. B. Baur, Sperm Competition in Molluscs. M.A. Elgar, Sperm Competition and Sexual Selection in Spiders and Other Arachnids. L.W. Simmons and M.T. Siva-Jothy, Sperm Competition in Insects: Mechanisms and the Potential for Selection. C.W. Petersen and R.R. Warner, Sperm Competition in Fishes. T.R. Halliday, Sperm Competition in Amphibians. M. Olsson and T. Madsen, Sexual Selection and Sperm Competition in Reptiles. T.R. Birkhead, Sperm Competition in Birds: Mechanisms and Function. D.A. Taggart, W.G. Breed, P.D. Temple-Smith, A. Purvis, and G. Shimmin, Reproduction, Mating Strategies and Sperm Competition in Marsupials and Monotremes. M. Gomendio, A.H. Harcourt, and E.R.S. Roldan, Sperm Competition in Mammals. T.R. Birkhead and A.P. Moller, Sperm Competition, Sexual Selection and Different Routes to Fitness. Index.

Sperm competition and sexual selection

Female mate choice is central to the theory of sexual selection1, but much of the evidence for the basis of this choice is inconclusive2–4. First, non-random mating may occur because of male-male competition3; and second, even if females can be shown to be choosing mates it is often difficult to tell exactly on what criteria they are choosing. Possible criteria include male genes5–10, parental ability3 and quality of the resources held by males11,12, but in the wild these factors are often interdependent3. Here we report a field experiment with pied flycatchers that eliminates the correlation between male characteristics and territory quality. We find that age, size, plumage colour and song repertoire of males are all uninfluential in female choice, and that territory quality is the single most important criterion.

Female pied flycatchers choose territory quality and not male characteristics

Some males of the pied flycatcher enhance their individual fitness by mating with two females, one of which receives their full support in caring for the brood, while the other is given very little or no aid and therefore, on average, produces a much reduced brood. These so-called secondary females thus have a low fitness. We refute the theories of differential territory quality and of sexy sons to explain the bigamous strategy in this species and argue that the male cheats some females into the role of being secondary. The trick used by the male is maintaining two spatially separate territories (polyterritorialism). We found that secondary females lay fewer eggs and take this as evidence that, at some point, they become "aware" of their true marital status and then, adaptively, reduce their clutch size. The alternative explanation, namely, that secondary females are intrinsically low-productive, for example, because of relatively younger age, can probably be refuted. Large males were found to be overrepr...

The Conflict Between Male Polygamy and Female Monogamy: The Case of the Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca

Why do Pied Flycatcher females mate with already-mated males?

The heritability estimate (?SE) for tarsus length in the pied flycatcher is 0. 53 + 0. 10, based on mother-offspring regressions. The heritability is almost the same (0.50 ? 0.22) for offspring transferred to other nests and reared by foster parents, whereas there is no resemblance (0.04 ? 0.23) between the offspring and their foster mothers. Hence, the nest environment does not affect parent-offspring resemblance. However, a full-sib correlation yields an estimate of the heritability twice as high as the parent-offspring regression did, indicating that shared environment effects, which are not correlated with the tarsus length of parents, must be important. An environmental deviation due to food factors affecting tarsus length is demonstrated. The most important food factors are probably associated with 1) polygyny, which leads to reduced paternal feeding at sec- ondary nests, 2) high breeding density, and 3) progress of the breeding season. All three are associated with reductions in offspring mean tarsus length. We estimate selection on tarsus length for the major components of lifetime reproductive success. Offspring with the shortest tarsi have reduced survival from fledging until breeding, and males with tarsus length close to the mean are most successful in attracting mates. Clutch size increases with female tarsus length, except for individuals with very long tarsi. In general, directional selection is weak, but stabilizing selection is rather strong for survival and male mating success.

Arne Lundberg

Papers

Female pied flycatchers choose territory quality and not male characteristics

The Conflict Between Male Polygamy and Female Monogamy: The Case of the Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca

Why do Pied Flycatcher females mate with already-mated males?

Heritability and selection on tarsus length in the pied flycatcher (ficedula hypoleuca).

Evolution of black grouse leks female preferences benefit males in larger leks