Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Assortative versus selective mating: is the distinction worthwhile?

H G Spencer1

  • 1Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138.

Social Biology
|January 1, 1992
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Contrasting biogeographical patterns in Margarella (Gastropoda: Calliostomatidae: Margarellinae) across the Antarctic Polar Front.

Molecular phylogenetics and evolution·2020
Same author

Valve microstructure and phylomineralogy of New Zealand chitons.

Journal of structural biology·2016
Same author

Genomic imprinting: theories and data.

Heredity·2014
Same author

Non-conflict theories for the evolution of genomic imprinting.

Heredity·2014
Same author

Evolutionary consequences of microhabitat: population-genetic structuring in kelp- vs. rock-associated chitons.

Molecular ecology·2011
Same author

Molecular systematics of the marine gastropod families Trochidae and Calliostomatidae (Mollusca: Superfamily Trochoidea).

Molecular phylogenetics and evolution·2009
Same journal

Disparities in Disability Life Expectancy in US Birth Cohorts: The Influence of Sex and Race.

Social biology·2015
Same journal

Are men really that bad as fathers? The role of men's investments.

Social biology·2011
Same journal

Hunting, social status and biological fitness.

Social biology·2011
Same journal

Historical and life course timing of the male mortality disadvantage in Europe: epidemiologic transitions, evolution, and behavior.

Social biology·2011
Same journal

Men with subnormal sperm counts live shorter lives.

Social biology·2011
Same journal

Age-related patterns of urinary gonadotropins (FSH and LH) and E-3-G as measures of reproductive function among Turkana males of northern Kenya.

Social biology·2011
See all related articles

The distinction between assortative and selective mating is unproductive and has been ignored. Recognizing similarities between mating schemes and fertility selection could advance population biology research.

Area of Science:

  • Population genetics
  • Evolutionary biology
  • Quantitative genetics

Background:

  • Lewontin, Kirk, and Crow (1968) proposed a distinction between assortative and selective mating.
  • This distinction has been inconsistently applied and often overlooked in subsequent research.
  • The nuances of nonrandom mating are critical for understanding population dynamics.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate the utility of the distinction between assortative and selective mating.
  • To demonstrate how maintaining this distinction can obscure important biological insights.
  • To highlight the benefits of recognizing formal equivalences between mating systems and other evolutionary forces.

Main Methods:

  • Conceptual analysis of mating system terminology.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Review of historical and contemporary literature on nonrandom mating.
  • Comparison of mathematical models for assortative mating, selective mating, and fertility selection.

    • Main Results:

    • The distinction between assortative and selective mating is found to be unproductive and hinders understanding.
    • Ignoring or inconsistently applying the distinction has led to missed opportunities in research.
    • Formal similarities exist between nonrandom mating schemes and systems like fertility selection.
    • Elucidating these similarities can reveal overlooked properties of population genetic models.

    Conclusions:

    • The separation of assortative and selective mating should be reconsidered.
    • Recognizing the formal equivalences can unify concepts in population biology.
    • A more integrated approach to nonrandom mating could accelerate advancements in the field.
    • Understanding these similarities is key for population biologists studying evolutionary processes.