Tools
ToolsChapman, Tracey, Arnqvist, Göran, Bangham, Jenny and Rowe, Locke (2003) Response to Eberhard and Cordero, and Córdoba-Aguilar and Contreras-Garduño: sexual conflict and female choice. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18 (9). pp. 440-441. ISSN 1872-8383
Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)Abstract
Eberhard and Cordero [ 1 ] begin with a claim that, in our recent TREE article [ 2 ], we are inconsistent in our use of an older, and new narrower definition of sexual conflict. For the former, we quoted the original views of Parker, Trivers, and Dawkins, and we stand by this usage. The ‘narrow’ definition noted by Eberhard and Cordero was not a definition at all, but rather an attempt to set recent models of sexual conflict into the broader context of sexual selection theory (direct versus indirect selection, and their signs). Córdoba-Aguilar and Contreras-Garduño [ 3 ] imply that we ignore difficulties in disentangling sexual conflict from ‘traditional models’. In fact, we were clear that the ‘boundary, if there is one, between traditional models of sexual selection and sexual conflict has not yet been carefully explored theoretically’ [ 2 ]. Yet, we believe that there is much to learn along this road, and initial forays have supported this view. Eberhard and Cordero consider this an overly optimistic viewpoint.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Faculty \ School: | Faculty of Science > School of Biological Sciences |
| UEA Research Groups: | Faculty of Science > Research Centres > Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation Faculty of Science > Research Groups > Organisms and the Environment |
| Depositing User: | Users 2731 not found. |
| Date Deposited: | 18 May 2011 11:02 |
| Last Modified: | 20 Jun 2023 14:42 |
| URI: | https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/30789 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00179-4 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |