Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T21:46:22.587Z 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
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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