The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
GOOD GENES AND DIRECT SELECTION IN THE EVOLUTION OF MATING PREFERENCES
Abstract
A model is used to study quantitatively the impact of a good genes process and direct natural selection on the evolution of a mating preference. The expression of a male display trait is proportional to genetic quality, which is determined by the number of deleterious mutations a male carries throughout his genome. Genetic variances and covariances, including the covariance between the preference and male trait that drives the good genes process, are allowed to evolve under an infinitesimal model. Results suggest that the good genes process generates only weak indirect selection on preferences, with an effective selection intensity of a few percent or less. If preferences are subject to direct natural selection of the intensity observed for other characters, the good genes process alone is not expected to exaggerate the male trait by more than a few phenotypic standard deviations, contrary to what is observed in highly sexually selected species. Good genes can, however, cause substantial exaggeration if preference genes are nearly selectively neutral. Alternatively, direct selection on preference genes, acting on mating behavior itself or on the genes' pleiotropic effects, can cause mating preferences and male display traits to be exaggerated by any degree. Direct selection of preference genes may therefore play an important role in species that show extreme sexual selection.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The genetical theory of natural selection
Fisher, R. A. (1930) · doi:10.5962/bhl.title.27468 · Cited by 17,617
The measurement of selection on correlated characters
Lande, R., & Arnold, S. J. (1983) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1983.tb00236.x · Cited by 5,437
Mate selection—A selection for a handicap
Zahavi, A. (1975) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3 · Cited by 5,251
XV.—The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance.
Fisher, R. A. (1919) · Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh · doi:10.1017/s0080456800012163 · Cited by 4,387
QUANTITATIVE GENETIC ANALYSIS OF MULTIVARIATE EVOLUTION, APPLIED TO BRAIN:BODY SIZE ALLOMETRY
Lande, R. (1979) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1979.tb04694.x · Cited by 2,648
The Effect of Selection on Genetic Variability
Bulmer, M. G. (1971) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/282718 · Cited by 989
Cited by
Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390 · Cited by 2,429
Harm to females increases with male body size in Drosophila melanogaster
Pitnick, S., & García–González, F. (2002) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2090 · Cited by 218
Hormones and Mating System Affect Sex and Species Differences in Immune Function among Vertebrates
Klein, S. L. (2000) · Behavioural Processes · doi:10.1016/s0376-6357(00)00125-x · Cited by 209
Metadata
- Authors
- Kirkpatrick, M.
- Venue
- Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1996-12
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 2125-2140
- ISSN
- 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-5646
- OpenAlex
- W2071295269
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 16.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: GOOD GENES AND DIRECT SELECTION IN THE EVOLUTION OF MATING PREFERENCES. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb03603.x
- The paper
- Kirkpatrick, M. (1996). GOOD GENES AND DIRECT SELECTION IN THE EVOLUTION OF MATING PREFERENCES. Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb03603.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.