The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
SEXUAL SELECTION AND ALLOMETRY: A CRITICAL REAPPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE AND IDEAS
Abstract
One of the most pervasive ideas in the sexual selection literature is the belief that sexually selected traits almost universally exhibit positive static allometries (i.e., within a sample of conspecific adults, larger individuals have disproportionally larger traits). In this review, I show that this idea is contradicted by empirical evidence and theory. Although positive allometry is a typical attribute of some sexual traits in certain groups, the preponderance of positively allometric sexual traits in the empirical literature apparently results from a sampling bias reflecting a fascination with unusually exaggerated (bizarre) traits. I review empirical examples from a broad range of taxa illustrating the diversity of allometric patterns exhibited by signal, weapon, clasping and genital traits, as well as nonsexual traits. This evidence suggests that positive allometry may be the exception rather than the rule in sexual traits, that directional sexual selection does not necessarily lead to the evolution of positive allometry and, conversely, that positive allometry is not necessarily a consequence of sexual selection, and that many sexual traits exhibit sex differences in allometric intercept rather than slope. Such diversity in the allometries of secondary sexual traits is to be expected, given that optimal allometry should reflect resource allocation trade-offs, and patterns of sexual and viability selection on both trait size and body size. An unbiased empirical assessment of the relation between sexual selection and allometry is an essential step towards an understanding of this diversity.
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 descent of man and selection in relation to sex
(1907) · The Journal of the Anthropological Society of Tokyo · doi:10.1537/ase1887.22.495 · Cited by 10,892
Biological signals as handicaps
Grafen, A. (1990) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80088-8 · Cited by 2,462
ALLOMETRY AND SIZE IN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENY
GOULD, S. J. (1966) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1469-185x.1966.tb01624.x · Cited by 2,280
SEXUAL DIMORPHISM, SEXUAL SELECTION, AND ADAPTATION IN POLYGENIC CHARACTERS
Lande, R. (1980) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1980.tb04817.x · Cited by 1,878
The Evolution of Body Size: What Keeps Organisms Small?
Blanckenhorn, W. U. (2000) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/393620 · Cited by 1,277
Sexual Selection: Testing the Alternatives
Bradbury, J. W. (1987) · Cited by 1,069
Fairbairn, D. J. (1997) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.659 · Cited by 1,036
The descent of man : and selection in relation to sex
Darwin, C. (1874) · doi:10.5962/bhl.title.54341 · Cited by 607
The structural relationship: regression in biology
McArdle, B. H. (1988) · Canadian Journal of Zoology · doi:10.1139/z88-348 · Cited by 583
The Development and Evolution of Exaggerated Morphologies in Insects
Emlen, D. J., & Nijhout, H. F. (2000) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.661 · Cited by 502
Cited by
A Primer on Phylogenetic Generalised Least Squares
Symonds, M. R. E., & Blomberg, S. P. (2014) · Modern Phylogenetic Comparative Methods and Their Application in Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-43550-2_5 · Cited by 445
Metadata
- Authors
- Bonduriansky, R.
- Venue
- Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-04
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 838-849
- ISSN
- 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-5646
- OpenAlex
- W2142592728
- Cited by
- 401
- References
- 61
- FWCI
- 11.99
- 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: SEXUAL SELECTION AND ALLOMETRY: A CRITICAL REAPPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE AND IDEAS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00081.x
- The paper
- Bonduriansky, R. (2007). SEXUAL SELECTION AND ALLOMETRY: A CRITICAL REAPPRAISAL OF THE EVIDENCE AND IDEAS. Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00081.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.