(2009) did for centrosaurine nasal horns However, in any case so

(2009) did for centrosaurine nasal horns. However, in any case social selection reduces to a kind of natural selection. Moreover, these authors do not accurately distinguish social selection and species recognition. They state (2009: 1394) that ‘species recognition traits are under selection only in the earliest stages of courtship during mating’, following West-Eberhard (1983); but species recognition is simply a matter of possessing traits that allow an individual to recognize others of its species, for many functions besides breeding. They also state that ‘species recognition traits are only expected to occur in closely related sympatric

species,’ as opposed to being DAPT ic50 able to ‘diverge in allopatric isolated populations,’ but in our view species recognition can begin at the population level selleck products and can easily diverge in populations of a single species, especially if the selective change is anagenetic. Contrary to West-Eberhard (1983), species recognition

does not entail ‘reproductive character displacement,’ or necessarily any features that relate to mating, reproduction, or competition among individuals of a species (Mayr, 1963). Those other terms are the provenance of mate recognition, social selection, and natural selection. She rightfully criticizes earlier work that attributed to species recognition many phenomena due to sexual selection or social selection (such as the hypothesis that signal distinctiveness should be reduced on islands and in isolated (allopatric) populations (West-Eberhard, 1983: 165). That was sorted out with further experimental work, but it does not nullify the concept of species recognition or imply that it is indistinguishable from these other processes. This confusion aside, it is possible to assess the predicted effects of species recognition and to separate them from those of other hypotheses. (iv) Species recognition– Under the explanation of species recognition, bizarre structures would have no apparent mechanical function and would not specifically evolve to

attract members of the opposite sex for mating (viz., Vrba, 1984; Paterson, 1993); rather, they make it easier for individuals to recognize others of the same (and different) species. That is, the bizarre structures communicate to other Methamphetamine individuals a variety of possible associational cues, including species identification, potential protection and social habits and the appropriateness of potential mates. They are positive indicators of beneficial social affiliations. There can be a strong ontogenetic component to this process: young neoceratopsians, pachycephalosaurs and lambeosaurs lacked the extent of cranial ornaments of fully grown individuals, although they had rudimentary development, and it appears that in many cases these ornaments were rather rapidly developed at or around the attainment of adult size.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>