RE: Lets be careful

Julie A. Zeppieri (jazep at conncoll.edu)
Fri, 24 May 1996 13:40:17 -0400 (EDT)

Hi, all.

Here are my thoughts on the difference between natural selection and
sexual selection. Please excuse the gross oversimplification, as I am not
out to rewrite any of the weighty texts that are available on this
subject. :-)

Natural selection is basically similar to the idea of "survival of the
fittest." In this case, it also can mean "luckiest," as sometimes the
"fittest" individuals of a population can be unlucky enough to be in the
wrong place at the wrong time and not survive to pass on their genes to
their offspring. The ephemeral nature of much of Oz's aquatic habitat
could serve as example of this. Also, obviously, only a small percentage
of any given population's individuals do actually survive long enough in
the wild to ever reproduce. Of those offspring, only a percentage of them
survive to do the same, and so on. They are "selected for" by the
environment, so to speak.

Sexual selection, on the other hand, is the process by which sexual
characteristics evolve. An example of the results of sexual selection can
be seen in the larger, brighter males of most rainbowfish species.
Basically, individuals (mostly females) "select for" certain males as
breeding partners over others, and thus the traits which made these
individuals the preferable partners are passed along to the next
generation, and often also amplified, as this is a process that happens
again and again. It is a type of selection, but is very different from
"natural selection."

a brief aside here. I think that the very nature of a school is what
allows "unwilling" females to escape the sexually active males. It's hard
to concentrate on just one fish when there are so many others milling
around "getting in the way.' I think that this works just as well on
dominant male bows as it does on potential predators. What say, all?

Julie Zeppieri (RSG) <><