New estimates indicate that males are not larger than females in most mammals
Tombak, K. J.; Hex, S. B. S. W.; Rubenstein, D. I.
Show abstract
Sexual size dimorphism (SSD) has motivated a large body of research on mammalian mating strategies and sexual selection. Despite some contrary evidence, the narrative that larger males are the norm in mammals - upheld since Darwins Descent of Man - still dominates today, supported by meta-analyses that use crude measures of dimorphism and taxonomically-biased data. With newly-available datasets and primary sources reporting sex-segregated means and variances in adult body mass, we estimated statistically-determined rates of SSD in mammals, sampling taxa by their species richness at the family level. Our analyses of >400 species indicate that although males tend to be larger than females when dimorphism occurs, males are not larger in most mammals, and suggest a need to revisit other assumptions in sexual selection research. One-Sentence SummaryTaxonomically-balanced estimates of rates of sexual size dimorphism in mammals refute the larger males narrative.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Experimental evidence that chronic outgroup conflict reduces reproductive success in a cooperatively breeding fish 92%
- Post-meiotic mechanism of facultative parthenogenesis in gonochoristic whiptail lizard species. 92%
- Seasonal and comparative evidence of adaptive gene expression in mammalian brain size plasticity 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evolutionary impact of size-selective harvesting on shoaling behavior: Individual-level mechanisms and possible consequences for natural and fishing mortality 89%
- Five decades of data yield no support for adaptive biasing of offspring sex ratio in wild baboons (Papio cynocephalus) 88%
- Beyond size dimorphism: the past, present, and future of Rensch's Rule 88%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.