thumb|upright=1.35|The peacock tail in flight, the classic example of an ornament assumed to be a Fisherian runaway
Fisherian 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 ostentatious male ornamentation by persistent, directional female choice. An example is the colourful and elaborate peacock plumage compared to the relatively subdued peahen plumage; the costly ornaments, notably the bird's extremely long tail, appear to be incompatible with natural selection. Fisherian runaway can be postulated to include sexually dimorphic phenotypic traits such as behavior expressed by a particular sex.
Extreme and (seemingly) maladaptive sexual dimorphism represented a paradox for evolutionary biologists from Charles Darwin's time up to the modern synthesis. Darwin attempted to resolve the paradox by assuming heredity for both the preference and the ornament, and supposed an "aesthetic sense" in higher animals, leading to powerful selection of both characteristics in subsequent generations.
thumb|Female (left) and male (right) [[common pheasant|pheasant, a sexually dimorphic species]]
thumb|[[Peacock spider males perform courtship dances that display their boldly patterned chelicerae, legs, and abdomens. Females are cryptic brown. <!-- David E. Hill and Jürgen C. Otto. Courtship display of the peacock spider Maratus aquilus (Araneae: Salticidae: Euophryini), December 2019.-->]]
History
From Charles Darwin to Ronald Fisher
Charles Darwin published a book on sexual selection in 1871 called The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, which garnered interest upon its release but by the 1880s the ideas had been deemed too controversial and were largely neglected. Alfred Russel Wallace disagreed with Darwin, particularly after Darwin's death, that sexual selection was a real phenomenon.
Peacocks and sexual dimorphism
thumb|The peacock, on the right, is courting the peahen, on the left.
The plumage dimorphism of the peacock and peahen of the species within the genus Pavo is a prime example of the ornamentation paradox that has long puzzled evolutionary biologists; Darwin wrote in 1860:<blockquote>The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me sick!</blockquote>The peacock's colourful and elaborate tail requires a great deal of energy to grow and maintain. It also reduces the bird's agility, and may increase the animal's visibility to predators. The tail appears to lower the overall fitness of the individuals who possess it. Yet, it has evolved, indicating that peacocks who have longer and more colourfully elaborate tails have some advantage over peacocks who do not. Fisherian runaway posits that the evolution of the peacock tail is made possible if peahens have a preference to mate with peacocks that possess a longer and more colourful tail. Peahens that select males with these tails in turn have male offspring that are more likely to have long and colourful tails and thus are more likely to be sexually successful themselves. Equally importantly, the female offspring of these peahens are more likely to have a preference for peacocks with longer and more colourful tails. However, though the relative fitness of males with large tails is higher than those without, the absolute fitness levels of all the members of the population (both male and female) is less than it would be if none of the peahens (or only a small number) had a preference for a longer or more colourful tail.
Genetic basis
Fisherian runaway assumes that sexual preference in females and ornamentation in males are both genetically variable (heritable).
The sensory exploitation hypothesis proposes that sexual preferences for exaggerated traits are the result of sensory biases, such as that for supernormal stimuli.
See also
- Costly signaling theory in evolutionary psychology
- Evolutionary suicide
- Secondary sex characteristic
References
<!-- Isn't this unnecessary? It's just the title of the article. -->
