The Red Queen_ Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature - Matt Ridley [76]
Møller interprets this as unambiguous evidence in favour of Good-geners, for it shows that a condition-dependent trait – symmetry – is sexually selected. He joined forces with Pomiankowski to begin to separate those ornaments that show a correlation between symmetry and size from those that do not: in effect, to separate Good-geners from Fisher. Their initial conclusion was that animals with single ornaments – like a swallow with its long tail – are Good-geners and show increasing symmetry with increasing size, whereas animals with multiple ornaments – like a pheasant with its long tail, red facial roses and colourful feather patterns – are mostly Fisherian, showing no relationship between size and symmetry. Since then, Pomiankowski has returned to the subject from a different angle, arguing that Fisher and many ornaments are likely to predominate when the cost to females of choosing is cheap; Good-genes will predominate when the cost of choosing is high. Again we reach the same conclusion: peacocks are Fisherian; swallows are Good-geners.51
Honest Junglefowl
So far, I have considered the evolution of male ornaments mainly from the female’s point of view, because it is her preferences that drive that evolution. But in a species like a peafowl, where female choice of mate rules, the male is not entirely a passive spectator of his evolutionary fate. He is an ardent suitor and an eager salesman both. He has a product to sell – his genes perhaps – and information to impart about that product. But he does not simply hand the information over and await the peahen’s decision. He is out to persuade her, to seduce her. And just as she is descended from females who made a careful choice, so he is descended from males who made a hard sell (and vice versa, but that is less relevant).
The analogy of the sales pitch is revealing, for advertisers do not promote their product merely by providing information about it. They fib, exaggerate and try to associate it with pleasurable images. They sell ice-cream using sexy pictures, air tickets using couples walking hand-in-hand on beaches, instant coffee using romance and cigarettes using cowboys.
When a man wants to seduce a woman, he does not send her a copy of his bank statement, but a pearl necklace. He does not send her his doctor’s report, but he lets slip that he runs ten miles a week and never gets colds. He does not tell her what degree he got, but he dazzles her with wit. He does not display testaments to how thoughtful he is, but he sends her a bunch of red roses on her birthday. Each gesture has a message: I’m rich, I’m fit, I’m clever, I’m nice. But the information is packaged to be more seductive, more effective, just as the message ‘Buy my ice-cream’ catches the eye when it is accompanied by a picture of two good-looking people seducing each other.
In courtship, as in the world of advertising, there is a discrepancy of interests between the buyer and the seller. The female needs to know the truth about the male: his health, wealth and genes. The male wants to exaggerate and distort the information. The female wants the truth; the male wants to lie. The very word seduction implies trickery and manipulation.52
Seduction therefore becomes a classic Red Queen contest, although this time the two protagonists are male and female, not host and disease. Zahavi’s handicap theory, as explored by Hamilton and Zuk, predicted that honesty will eventually prevail, and males that cheat will be revealed. This is because the handicap is chosen by the female as her criterion of choice for the very reason that it reveals the male’s state of health.
The red junglefowl is the wild cousin of the domestic chicken. Like a farmyard rooster the cock is equipped with a good many ornaments