Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-pd9xq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T04:48:45.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Current versus future, not genes versus parenting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2019

James S. Chisholm  and
David A. Coall
James S. Chisholm
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy and Human Biology, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA 6907, Australia{jchisholm; dcoall}@anhb.uwa.edu.auwww.anhb.uwa.edu.au/staff/jchisholm/home/html
David A. Coall
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy and Human Biology, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA 6907, Australia{jchisholm; dcoall}@anhb.uwa.edu.auwww.anhb.uwa.edu.au/staff/jchisholm/home/html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Gangestad & Simpson's model of the evolution of within-sex differences in reproductive strategies requires a degree of female choice that probably did not exist because of male coercion. We argue as well that the tradeoff between current and future reproduction accounts for more of the within-sex differences in reproductive strategies than the “good-genes-good parenting” tradeoff they propose.

Type
Brief Report
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , August 2000 , pp. 597 - 598
Copyright
2000 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)