Contents 1 Female sabotage 2 Incoherent Babble 3 Darwin quotes and female passivity 4 Dawkins explanation of runaway sexual selection seems wrong 5 Removed Criticism para 6 Some small edits can be made throughout the article 7 References 8 Nothing about recombination 9 "...As an example for this, he implicitly mentions Steatopygia in Khoisan women.[35]" 10 External links modified 11 External links modified

Female sabotage[edit] Since the only current discussion here focuses on my work, I'm making these comments at the top. There are three facts here: 1) My research is published in peer-reviewed journals. This makes it eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. 2) My research provides a completely unique and novel interpretation of an existing body of knowledge. No one has ever made these insights nor performed these experiments before. This makes it important for inclusion in Wikipedia. 3) My research offers an alternative explanation, even a challenge, to more widely-held interpretations. This, with the previous two, make it imperative that any fair-minded and objective review of the field should include this research. To do otherwise opens the door to charges of partiatlity. Lawyers say that when the facts are on your side, argue the facts; when the facts are not on your side, argue the law. The fact that you are not responding to my appeals on the merit of my work, and are instead arguing the law (i.e. rules/guidelines) suggests that you can't counter the facts. Adding to this concern is the fact that, without exception, you have incorrectly and unfairly invoked various Wikipedia guidelines, violating both their letter and spirit. Specifically you have objected to my edit under the following: Original work. I used the word "original" on one occasion to mean novel, and you seized that word in order to incorrectly invoke a Wikipedia rule which actually says: "... your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications." So that rule is not applicable here. Self-promotion. Because I am the author of the research, a charge of self-promotion has been made. The rule on self-promotion says, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies." This rule is also not applicable here. Notability. I addressed that below and my comments were ignored. So I let me repeat my concerns. The rule says, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article" (italics mine). The explanation continues further down: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list." So another rule is not applicable here. Style. That charge was made against my edit but never explained. I asked for substantiation, and again, I was ignored. Number of Citations. One editor, below, said flatly that my work will not be admitted until more people cite it. This goes beyond the pale; that isn't even a Wikipedia guideline. So not only are you arguing the law, you are repeatedly and consistently arguing the law incorrectly, even creating an ad hoc rule once I had countered your other objections. All of this makes me very worried that there has been a loss of impartiality here. Please look over the preceding carefully as I am hesitant to mention this, but given the foregoing this is beginning to look like an attempt to suppress dissenting voices within this field of research. If that is not the case, I apologize in advance. Otherwise I would urge you to reconsider your objections here.--BooksXYZ (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC) I propose you write your own article on Female Sabotage and we can use that to decide the notability criterion. The problem is that your discussion of your valid, peer-reviewed, published research is in the midst of an article on a very deep, very broad subject and it may confuse some readers. Link your article on Female Sabotage Theory into Sexual Selection. As for self-promotion, I would refer to the second clause of the rule you cite: "...only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies." I'm sorry, but your line of research does not appear to be relevant to the broader article on sexual selection. If you repeatedly put back your material that the community (at least this community of editors) has agreed is not relevant here then it looks like self-promotion. Finally, once again your "three facts" are not relevant. I'm truly sorry, but those things don't matter: Wikipedia is not a scientific journal.Trashbird1240 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Joel, you're a graduate student with no solo publications to your name, and the other active editor here posts anonymously. The two of you are running roughshod over the very concepts of Wikipedia. You've grossly misapplied the Wikipedia guidelines, and when this was pointed out to you, you began making up new guidelines. You have never admitted to any of this, and have certainly never apologized or tried to make corrections. All of this makes your errors appear deliberate. Now you have decided yourselves fit to overrule scientists, journal reviewers and editors with vastly more knowledge than you have, to determine, not only what articles are important, but whether those articles are even relevant to the field of study. And finally you have decided that you will protect the rest us from anything that might be "confusing". The two of you have assumed the right to determine what concepts the rest of us will be permitted to read. Wikipedia is not your personal fiefdom.--BooksXYZ (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Since when are solo publications the criterion for competence as a scientist? Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC) (UTC) Wikipedia is not my personal fiefdom, nor is it yours: using Wikipedia to promote your articles is not appropriate. I'm not concerned with whether my expertise is comparable to that of the scientists who reviewed your work, since Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. It's a wiki, in other words, you put things up with the full knowledge that somebody else will edit it. This sort of discussion is completely part of the process; it's not supposed to involve personal attacks, but discussion of what's appropriate and helpful to the overall goal of the article. You seem to be expending a lot of energy on this. I understand how you want to share your research with the world and that's great. But you're already doing that through having published your articles. There are other forums: you could write a blog, or you could write a book on the subject and freely share it with the world. The difference is that on Wikipedia there are editors. That is the whole point (as I understand it). Trashbird1240 (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Earlier discussions on this topic: The 1998 article cited to support the Female Sabotage hypothesis paragraph, has been cited a total of two times (once incorrectly) since it was published. The 2005 paper (mentioned but not cited) does not appear in the ISI database. This appears to be a relatively non-notable piece of work given undue emphasis. Pete.Hurd 22:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC) OK, I found the 2005 paper. Abraham JN Insect choice and floral size dimorphism: Sexual selection or natural selection? JOURNAL OF INSECT BEHAVIOR 18 (6): 743-756 NOV 2005, Times Cited: 0. It's one of the two papers to cite the 1998 article, (the other is Bertini A, David B, Cezilly F, et al. Quantification of sexual dimorphism in Asellus aquaticus (Crustacea : Isopoda) using outline approaches BIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY 77 (4): 523-533 DEC 2002, Times Cited: 2. Pete.Hurd 02:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Doh! there it is in the references section... Pete.Hurd 02:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC) I'm going to delete the two paragraphs relating to Joe Abrahams work. Authors are generally quoted in the article when they have been highly influential within the development of the theory (e.g. Darwin, Fisher, Hamilton, Zahavi, Lande, Rice, Rowe, Arnqvist). Their publication records typically reflect this, both in quantity, quality of the journal in which they publish, and citations to their work. Joe Abrahams is not one of these people. He has published two papers in the field, both in fairly marginal journals (current impact factors 0.7 and 1.1) that each attracted only one citation, of which at least one was completely non-specific. This body of work pales in comparison with the typical output of most PhD students. I feel it would therefore be misleading to readers of this article to include the paragraphs, because it suggests that he is on par with the other authors mentioned. The article is long enough as it is. Because this should be reason enough for deletion, I won't get started about the content of the papers, although there are quite a few concerns there too (e.g. Maynard-Smith and Kirkpatrick's personal communications in Saboteuse). Evlshout (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC) I am reinstating my work. An encyclopedia, as the name states, is the circle of education, a survey of all knowledge. It is a place that anyone can get an overview of a field. I am citing entirely original work, published in peer-reviewed journals. If Wikipedia has rules governing which scholarly works are eligible for inclusion, please cite it. Otherwise, this is a user-generated website. No one, or now few, have the right to pick and choose what they wish included. Thank you.--BooksXYZ (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Your work? You have a Conflict of Interest here? Wikipedia urges you to be extremely cautious about citing your own work - it is not forbidden but to be done very very carefully and without any hint of self-promotion. Forgive me if you didn't mean that, it isn't clear. WP Rules: yes, there are plenty. The key one is to avoid 'original research' which includes 'synthesis', such as by assembling primary sources (scholarly or otherwise) to make a statement. The approved procedure is to use secondary sources, which of course will themselves cite primary ones, to describe the field neutrally: normally by paraphrase but with short quotations as appropriate. Any WP editor may object to the excessive use of primary sources. BTW I think we should remove the Abraham material given the discussion above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Done. This material is not notable, as per this discussion. Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion, no matter how factually correct.Trashbird1240 (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC) You all agree with my central theses: when males die, resources shift to surviving females and offspring; and pollinators place optimality concerns above floral appearances. You also agree that both of these are alternatives, even challenges, to widely-held dogma. This is an encyclopedia, a review of all knowledge. More than that, it is the Wikipedia, the most comprehensive and collegial review of knowledge in the history of the world. In addition you are also scientists. As such, you are passionately committed to that same collegiality and comprehensiveness in the investigation, as well as the dissemination, of knowledge. And as scholars, you are also aware of the lessons of history: the dissenting viewpoint must be treated much more circumspectly than the accepted, "known" information, otherwise the critical intellectual dialogue of human progress grinds to a halt. Concerns of self-promotion must become null once the academic community accepts one's research for peer-reviewed journals, otherwise every time we teach our students or present our research at conferences, our work becomes nothing more than base self-promotion. I also believe that the 'original' work which Wikipedia proscribes indicates work that has not been vetted by other scholars. Finally, I believe Pete Hurd confused 'notable' with 'noted', which are different things; if what I have written is a valid and unique interpretation of the existing facts, then that qualifies as notable, whether it is noted or not. As scientists, and as Wikipedians, I would urge you to reconsider.--BooksXYZ (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC) I neither agree nor disagree with your theses. The sole question is WP:Notability. You are right that anything not cited by other people in reliable sources (such as by scholars in known journals) is considered unreliable. Wikipedia articles are meant to be constructed from secondary sources; construction from primary sources is as you know forbidden. Wikipedia is not the place for 'critical intellectual dialogue of human progress': it is a place to record the outcome of such research dialogue once it has taken place elsewhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the link. If you will re-visit it, I think you will agree that the problem of notability does not apply here: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article" (italics mine). The explanation continues further down: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list." So I can't see how your concerns are grounds to exclude my work. And I absolutely agree that Wikipedia is not a place for critical intellectual dialogue of human progress, but it is most definitely a chronicle of the intellectual dialogue of human progress. Moreover, like all good reference works it bends over backwards to insure that even discredited work is carefully described and recorded; witness the lengthy entries on Lamarckism and Recapitulation_theory.--BooksXYZ (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC) I'll just add that Wikipedia is not a review of all knowledge; it is a compendium of encyclopedic knowledge, which is something quite different. If someone had never read about sexual selection, they should be able to get a good idea of the major topics in the field by reading this article. Your research is very specific and takes lots of background to understand; yet another reason it should not be found in an encyclopedia, notability, style and rules about original research notwithstanding.Trashbird1240 (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC) With all due respect, the word "encyclopedia" exactly means a review of all knowledge, the word literally means "the circle of all learning." Wikipedia agrees on this point: "An encyclopedia ... is a type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." A summary of information must include cogent, contrasting viewpoints. As to your second point, only the most rudimentary knowledge of biology is necessary to understand that male death leaves resources for surviving females and offspring, and that pollinators need food to survive, not floral appearances. I have explained these concepts to laymen on several occasions, and they immediately grasped the concepts. Concerns of notability and originality have already been taken care of; I cannot see where style is a concern. Guys, my publications constitute valid, published, and peer-reviewed alternatives to the currently held theory; they challenge what we were all taught. I would strongly warn you not to exclude important dissenting viewpoints from this, or any review. As I noted above, to the contrary: if we understand history, and work toward the strongest possible science, we must take great pains to accommodate dissension. Wikipedia is a community-generated reference work; we all create it. We all have a vested interest in making sure that inclusion in Wikipedia is based on solid scholarship, not favoritism.--BooksXYZ (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Yes, but it is absolutely not a research platform, nor for self-publicity. We will include your work when other people have cited it sufficiently, and not before. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC) With regards to intrasexual selection: potentially room to mention the evolution of the human penis shape (coronal ridge) and link to separate page. (R.g.rooney25 (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC))

Incoherent Babble[edit] "A mate can be a single organism, mammal or animal." What on earth can this possibly mean? Does there exist a mate which is not a single organism? I know that there are mates that are mammals and maybe even animals. (Though I've had suspicions about some of my mates, but I'm pretty sure they were mammals. That's criterion one with me.) Then we have the fragment, "Does not have to be multiple." WTF?! Is this vandalism or some illiterate idiocy foisted on us by an editor with nothing to say but all the time in the world to make lunatic edits at Wikipedia? Seriously, is this monkey-typing that only occasionally makes sense? I won't edit it because I have no effing idea what it means and I won't delete it because I don't want the monkeys to start flinging feces at me. Besides, if I deleted it they'd just revert and then where would we be. I'll tell ya where we'd be, right effing here, doing the same thing over and over and over again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Hmmm...Well I'd say that it was simply using a sort of "oxymoron," if you will, to imply in simpler terms that it includes all organisms, animals and more specifically mammals included. I agree it does seem confusing! Aglo123 (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Darwin quotes and female passivity[edit] Are the Darwin quotes the best way to introduce the subject in the opening? They obviously are quite significant to the development of the idea, and ought to be featured early. But, on the other hand, my impression is that they may be misleading as to the current consensus of how this works. They seem to suggest nineteenth century received ideas about female passivity: when in fact, by being the selector rather than the selected, the females are active instigators here. We notice the male because he's trying to be noticed, and this gives rise to observational bias. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins explanation of runaway sexual selection seems wrong[edit] In the section on exponential growth in female preference, Dawkins is said to have claimed that sexual selection happens because "genes for long tails and for preferring long tails become linked." But that doesn't seem to me to be the cause at all. What causes runaway selection is that in a population where most females prefer long tails (for example), a female who does not prefer longer tails will be more likely to have male offspring without long tales. Those male offspring will be at a disadvantage because most other females prefer long tails; they will fail to reproduce as frequently, and so they will not pass on their mother's genes. "Linking" has nothing to do with it. The Fisher quote and following analysis captures this quite clearly. Did Dawkins really misunderstand this? Or did someone misunderstand Dawkins? I don't have the book with me, but this section kind of makes him look like a fool! (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Of course what Dawkins said in The Blind Watchmaker is much more complex than the few words present in the article. The argument's length makes me unable to do it justice here, but Dawkins is saying that a key factor for runaway sexual selection is that genes for males having a long tail are linked with genes for females preferring a male with a long tale—that's just a necessary step in the chain of events, all starting on the premise that in the species concerned, for some reason, females have a preference for males with long tails. To see the effect of that linkage, consider a species where the opposite applied, namely that a male with a long tail passed genes for having a long tail to his sons, and genes for preferring short tails to his daughters. It would be good if someone with the required time and skill would tweak the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Ok, I guess I see the logic, though it seems a little backwards. Aren't all genes always "linked" in this loose sense except for sex-linked genes? I can't think of any other way for genes to be "unlinked" in the way you describe. The various significations of "linked" here adds to the confusion. (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed Criticism para[edit] I removed the following para from the article. Lengthy, only one source (a popular book Why do People Sing? Music in Human Evolution), and no examples of male / female dimorphisms presumably not explained by sexual selection. Joseph Jordania proposed that in explaining brilliant body colors, various morphological additions ("ornaments"), wide range of vocalizations and strange display behaviors ("antics") in animal species Darwin neglected a very important factor of natural selection – warning display (known also as aposematism[1]). Warning display uses virtually the same arsenal of visual, audio, olfactory and behavioral features as sexual selection. According to the principle of aposematism, in order to avoid costly physical violence and to replace violence with the ritualized forms of display, many animal species use different forms of warning display: visual signals (contrastive body colors, eyespots, body ornaments, threat display and various postures to look bigger), audio signals (hissing, growling, group vocalizations), olfactory signals (producing strong body odors, particularly when excited or scared), behavioral signals (demonstratively slow walking, aggregation in large groups, aggressive display behavior against predators and conspecific competitors). According to Jordania, most of these warning displays were incorrectly attributed by the proponents of sexual selection to the forces of sexual selection.[2] Memills (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Some small edits can be made throughout the article[edit] 1) Definition of sexual selection: The definition does not describe sexual selection completely, as sexual selection is not out-reproduction of an individual. It is defined more by the sexes: the definition should be more along the lines of this: Sexual selection is the selection of mates with the basis of one sex having a trait that is favored and therefore selected for, and one the other sex being the choice-maker in terms of mating. 2) 'Sexual selection sometimes generates monstrously absurd features that, in harder times, may help cause a species' extinction, as has been suggested[6] for the giant antlers of the Irish Elk (Megaloceros giganteus) that became extinct in Pleistocene Europe.[9] However, sexual selection can also do the opposite, driving species divergence - sometimes through elaborate changes in genitalia - such that new species emerge.[10]' This section could use some expansion in terms of describing that the effect he is describing is along the concept of sexual dimorphism and the runaway process. The reason the observed features are so exaggerated is due to sexual dimorphism: the sex which has a trait that is being selected for will undergo the change in their secondary sexual characteristics in order to attract mates. The morphed character trait that is being selected can cause them to have exaggerated features because that is what will make them for sexually attractive to the other mate. The runaway process is also important to this process because it dictates that as the other sex, generally females, become more and more selective, wanting only to mate with the more extreme phenotypes, the males with the more extreme phenotypes will be reproductively successful. By evolving the necessary secondary sexual characteristics to choose mates, the female preference also increase at an exponential rate simultaneously like the secondary sexual characteristics of the opposite sex. As a result, exaggerated features are observed. ```` April Ou 8:31, 17 November 2014

References[edit] ^ Graeme D. Ruxton, Thomas N. Sherratt, Michael P. Speed. Avoiding attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals, and mimicry. Oxford University Press: 2004 ^ Joseph Jordania, Why do People Sing? Music in Human Evolution. Logos, 2011:186-196

Nothing about recombination[edit] It is ridiculous that all focus is dedicated on how animals select a partner that in 100 kb text we cannot even afford a note on why do they do that in the first place. Ok, male expose higher mutation rate and thus expose higher variability: most of the men are defected whereas others are extremely cute. They can spread they genes as hell and best features can be conserved in women, who undergo much less mutation and exist solely to conserve best genes (best trials, aka best men). This was said in the article, albeit not pronounced clearly. Better exposition of this part would shed some light on why do we have men and women in the first place. It would be even better to say something about recombination. Recombination, aka sexual reproduction or crossover is what allows to combine best features from different individuals. It makes evolution much faster than single individual mutation. Just imagine: one guy fortunately acquires one feature, another guy acquires another feature, third guy acquires some another feature. Now, if they cannot recombine and exchange their knowledge, they have to discover everything themselves. On the other hand, “If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.” Bernard Shaw explains the recombination principle: The human culture has advanced so rapidly just because you could spread the knowledge for free (I am not talking about climate in Wikipedia). Imagine that you had to discover everything yourself. You would still live in a cave age. So, recombination, sexual reproduction, is extreemly powerful. The flirt affairs sucked around is not as closely crucial. Why cannot we have even a reference to the recombination? --Javalenok (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC) This is an article on a specific type of selection. The end-product of sexual selection is presumably fertilization and recombination of alleles in gametes. Recombination is a higher-order phenomenon, and therefore implied. The article does cover sexual dimorphism, and repeatedly refers to parental investment. If you would like, you could make this link between parental investment strategies more explicit and link directly to that article. Aderksen (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"...As an example for this, he implicitly mentions Steatopygia in Khoisan women.[35]"[edit] Does Darwin mention Steatopygia in footnote 35 or not? The word "implicitly' implies that Darwin didn't mention it, the word "mention" implies that he did mention it. Very entertaining, but I'm concerned that Darwin didn't mention it, but a Wikipedian editor decided it would have been what Darwin should have mentioned. I'll put a clarify tag on it.2601:7:6580:5E3:9468:C1E2:811B:9C61 (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit] Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Sexual selection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes: Added archive to When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request. If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors. Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit] Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Sexual selection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: Added archive to When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request. If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool. If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors. Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC) Retrieved from "" Categories: C-Class Genetics articlesMid-importance Genetics articlesWikiProject Genetics articlesC-Class Evolutionary biology articlesHigh-importance Evolutionary biology articlesWikiProject Evolutionary biology articlesWikipedia pages with to-do listsWikipedia articles that use British English

Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog in Namespaces ArticleTalk Variants Views ReadEditNew sectionView history More Search Navigation Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia store Interaction HelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact page Tools What links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage information Print/export Create a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version Languages This page was last edited on 2 December 2017, at 04:01. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view (window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgPageParseReport":{"limitreport":{"cputime":"0.260","walltime":"0.391","ppvisitednodes":{"value":4525,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":79420,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":18108,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":15,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":9,"limit":500},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 267.245 1 -total"," 55.00% 146.987 1 Template:WikiProjectBannerShell"," 37.58% 100.431 2 Template:WPBannerMeta"," 33.60% 89.806 2 Template:WPBannerMeta/core"," 27.79% 74.264 1 Template:WikiProject_Genetics"," 18.94% 50.626 1 Template:Findsourcesnotice"," 17.91% 47.852 2 Template:Tmbox"," 12.31% 32.890 10 Template:Pagetype"," 11.76% 31.431 1 Template:EvolWikiProject"," 8.80% 23.526 1 Template:Find_sources_multi"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.042","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":2131061,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1218","timestamp":"20180107153804","ttl":1900800,"transientcontent":false}}});});(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":83,"wgHostname":"mw1251"});});

Talk:Sexual_selection - Photos and All Basic Informations

Talk:Sexual_selection More Links

Wikipedia:WikiProject CouncilWikipedia:WikiProjectWikipedia:WikiProject GeneticsTemplate:WikiProject GeneticsTemplate Talk:WikiProject GeneticsWikipedia:WikiProject GeneticsGeneticsWikipedia Talk:WikiProject GeneticsC-Class ArticleCategory:C-Class Genetics ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Genetics/AssessmentCategory:Mid-importance Genetics ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Genetics/AssessmentWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary BiologyPortal:Evolutionary BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary BiologyTemplate Talk:WikiProject Evolutionary BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary BiologyEvolutionary BiologyPopulation GeneticsQuantitative GeneticsMolecular EvolutionPhylogeneticsEvolutionary Developmental BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Tree Of LifeSystematicsTaxonomy (biology)Wikipedia:Contributing FAQWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary BiologyC-Class ArticleCategory:C-Class Evolutionary Biology ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary Biology/AssessmentCategory:High-importance Evolutionary Biology ArticlesWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary Biology/AssessmentWikipedia:To-do ListSexual SelectionWikipedia:Community Portal/OpentaskWikipedia:CleanupWikipedia:Writing Better ArticlesMale-male CompetitionFemale-female CompetitionMate ChoiceSexual Selection In HumansWikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:VerifiabilityBritish EnglishList Of Dialects Of The English LanguageWikipedia:Manual Of StyleTalk:Sexual Selection/Archive 1Wikipedia:What Wikipedia Is NotWikipedia:Conflict Of InterestWikipedia:NotabilityUser:BooksXYZUser Talk:BooksXYZSexual SelectionSexual SelectionUser:Trashbird1240User Talk:Trashbird1240User:BooksXYZUser Talk:BooksXYZUser:Pete.HurdUser Talk:Pete.HurdUser:Trashbird1240User Talk:Trashbird1240Female SabotageUser:Pete.HurdUser:Pete.HurdUser:Pete.HurdUser:EvlshoutUser Talk:EvlshoutUser:BooksXYZUser Talk:BooksXYZUser:Chiswick ChapUser Talk:Chiswick ChapUser:Trashbird1240User Talk:Trashbird1240User:BooksXYZUser Talk:BooksXYZWikipedia:NotabilityUser:Chiswick ChapUser Talk:Chiswick ChapLamarckismRecapitulation TheoryUser:BooksXYZUser Talk:BooksXYZUser:Trashbird1240User Talk:Trashbird1240EncyclopediaUser:BooksXYZUser Talk:BooksXYZUser:Chiswick ChapUser Talk:Chiswick ChapUser:R.g.rooney25User Talk:R.g.rooney25Wikipedia:SignaturesSpecial:Contributions/ Talk:Aglo123User:IhcoycUser Talk:IhcoycSpecial:Contributions/ Blind WatchmakerUser:JohnuniqUser Talk:JohnuniqSpecial:Contributions/ JordaniaWarning DisplayAposematismEyespot (mimicry)Threat DisplayGrowlingAnimal CommunicationOlfactoryBody OdorWalkingPheromonePredatorCompetitorUser Talk:MemillsJoseph JordaniaWhy Do People Sing? Music In Human EvolutionUser:JavalenokUser Talk:JavalenokGenetic RecombinationParental InvestmentUser:AderksenUser Talk:AderksenSpecial:Contributions/2601:7:6580:5E3:9468:C1E2:811B:9C61Sexual SelectionTemplate:CbignoreTemplate:NobotsUser:Cyberbot IIUser Talk:Cyberbot IISexual SelectionSpecial:Diff/813160046User:Cyberpower678/FaQsUser:InternetArchiveBotUser Talk:InternetArchiveBotHelp:CategoryCategory:C-Class Genetics ArticlesCategory:Mid-importance Genetics ArticlesCategory:WikiProject Genetics ArticlesCategory:C-Class Evolutionary Biology ArticlesCategory:High-importance Evolutionary Biology ArticlesCategory:WikiProject Evolutionary Biology ArticlesCategory:Wikipedia Pages With To-do ListsCategory:Wikipedia Articles That Use British EnglishDiscussion About Edits From This IP Address [n]A List Of Edits Made From This IP Address [y]View The Content Page [c]Discussion About The Content Page [t]Edit This Page [e]Visit The Main Page [z]Guides To Browsing WikipediaFeatured Content – The Best Of WikipediaFind Background Information On Current EventsLoad A Random Article [x]Guidance On How To Use And Edit WikipediaFind Out About WikipediaAbout The Project, What You Can Do, Where To Find ThingsA List Of Recent Changes In The Wiki [r]List Of All English Wikipedia Pages Containing Links To This Page [j]Recent Changes In Pages Linked From This Page [k]Upload Files [u]A List Of All Special Pages [q]Wikipedia:AboutWikipedia:General Disclaimer

view link view link view link view link view link