EVOLUTION
Fisher’s View of Sexual Selection (Runaway Selection)
Fisher’s runaway or runaway selection is a sexual selection mechanism proposed by the mathematical biologist Ronald Fisher in
the early 20th century, to account for the evolution of exaggerated male ornamentation by female choice. Fisher's view of sexual
runaway selection, also known as Fisher’s runaway, is a theory explaining why some animals develop extravagant traits despite
potential risks. An example is the colourful and elaborate peacock plumage compared to the relatively peahen plumage; the
costly ornaments, notably the bird's extremely long tail, appear to be incompatible with natural selection.
Basis of runaway theory
Fisher developed the theory further by assuming genetic correlation between the female preference and the male ornament. The
basis of it is:
1. Female Choice: Fisherian runaway selection is driven by the preference of females for certain exaggerated traits in
males during mate selection.
2. Sexual Attractiveness: Females choose mates based on traits that they find attractive, such as colourful plumage or
elaborate displays.
3. Genetic Fitness: Exaggerated traits signal genetic fitness and overall health to females, indicating the ability to provide
strong offspring.
4. Positive Feedback: Males with these preferred traits are more successful in attracting mates, leading to a positive
feedback loop where the traits become increasingly exaggerated over time.
5. Long-Term Evolution: Over successive generations, the preference for exaggerated traits by females drives the evolution
of extravagant characteristics in males.
That initially the ornament signalled greater potential fitness (the likelihood of leaving more descendants), so preference for the
ornament had a selective advantage. Subsequently, if strong enough, female preference for exaggerated ornamentation in mate
selection could be enough to undermine natural selection even when the ornament has become non-adaptive. Over subsequent
generations this could lead to runaway selection by positive feedback, and the speed with which the trait and the preference
increase could (until counter-selection interferes) increase exponentially.
Principle:
The principles of Fisher’s runaway are rooted in the concept of sexual selection, where mates choose partners based on specific
traits. According to this theory, traits that are initially advantageous for attracting mates can become exaggerated through
successive generations if they continue to be preferred by the opposite sex. This process, known as runaway sexual selection,
leads to the development of extravagant and sometimes impractical characteristics in certain species.
1. Sexual Preference: Animals develop exaggerated traits because they are preferred by the opposite sex during mating
rituals.
2. Advantageous Traits: Initially advantageous traits for attracting mates become exaggerated over time.
3. Positive Feedback: Individuals with exaggerated traits are more successful in mating, leading to a positive feedback loop.
4. Runaway Selection: The process continues over generations, resulting in increasingly extravagant and sometimes
impractical characteristics.
5. Role of Sexual Selection: Mate choice drives the development of these exaggerated traits, shaping animal behavior and
appearance.
When Sexual Selection Runs Away
The concept of runaway sexual selection illustrates one of the ways that sexual selection is hypothesized to work.
The quandary of female choice:
1
This leads to an interesting question: how did female choice for traits like a long, colourful tail evolve? After all, if a female
chooses a male with a long, awkward tail, her sons will probably have a similar tail—and that tail might hurt their chances of
survival by attracting predators. How could natural selection act to produce a preference for a disadvantageous trait?
It makes sense for a female to choose a mate based on traits that help him survive. For example, a female bird would do well to
choose a strong-looking, disease-free mate. That male likely carries good genes that allow him to resist disease and get sufficient
food and he will pass those genes on to his offspring.
However, there are many examples of females choosing mates based on less useful traits (e.g., song complexity) or even traits
detrimental to survival (e.g., brightly colored plumage, as in the case of the peacock). These cases present evolutionary biologists
with a bit of a puzzle. How did these preferences arise in the first place? If a female chooses a male with bright feathers, her sons
will have bright feathers, which are likely to attract predators. A gene for choosing brightly colored males would seem to be
disadvantageous. How do such genes spread through a population?
There are several possible answers to explain how these seemingly disadvantageous genes spread through the population, among
them:
1 Runaway selection:
Imagine a bird population in which females choose mates at random. Males with slightly longer tails fly a little more
adeptly, avoid predation, and so, survive better than males with slightly shorter tails. In this situation, a gene for female
choosiness (longer tail = sexier) will be favoured, since by choosing a long-tailed male she will have sons with longer tails.
This trait will spread through the population until most males have long tails and most females prefer long-tailed mates.
So far so good.
However, once this has happened, the process may run out of control, until the male trait becomes so exaggerated that it is
disadvantageous. In other words, female preference, instead of survival advantage, may begin to drive the evolution of ever-
longer tails, until males are encumbered by showy plumage that no longer helps them avoid predation.
2. Good genes:
Imagine another bird population in which females choose mates at random. Some males in the population have better
genes for survival than others, but it is difficult to tell whether a male has good genes or not. In this scenario, long tails
make it more difficult to survive they are costly to produce and maintain. Because they are so costly, only males with
good genes have the extra resources to produce them. In this situation, a long tail is an indicator of good genes. A gene
for female choosiness (longer tail = sexier) will be favored, since by choosing a long-tailed/good gene male she will have
sons with good genes. This trait will spread through the population until most females choose long-tailed mates and
males that are able to produce long tails are favored.
2
If females choose males with “long and costly” tails, they are guaranteed to get good genes! If they choose males with “short and
cheap” tails, they may get good or bad genes.