The evolution of parental investment: re-examining the anisogamy argument.

doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.09.031

Back to search

Article

The evolution of parental investment: re-examining the anisogamy argument.

Journal of theoretical biology - 21 Apr 2012

Ellingsen Tore, Robles Jack

Abstract excerpt

In most animals with internal fertilization, the early costs of parenting by necessity falls on the female, whereas male and female investments are closer substitutes later on. After Dawkins and Carlisle's (1976) critique of Trivers' (1972) anisogamy argument, the conventional wisdom has been that early investment costs as such are irrelevant for the allocation of subsequent parental investment. However, in a...

Read the complete abstract on PubMed

Topics

Share this publication in a Topic to start or enrich a Post.

Share to Models, Genetic

Share to Mutation

Share to Parenting

Related research

Semantic proximity does not establish scientific evidence.

Click a neighbor to travelStep 1 · 8 closest

The evolution of parental investment: re-examining the anisogamy argument.PMID 21996471Read

Gametic conflict versus contact in the evolution of anisogamy.Semantic proximity Read

When to rely on maternal effects and when on phenotypic plasticity?Semantic proximity Read

Parthenogenesis and the Evolution of Anisogamy.Semantic proximity Read

Predation drives interpopulation differences in parental care expression.Semantic proximity Read

Parent—offspring conflict: the full–sib—half–sib fallacySemantic proximity Read

Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction.Semantic proximity Read

Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex.Semantic proximity Read

Evolution. The cost of being male.Semantic proximity Read