Xref: utzoo sci.bio:997 soc.men:3056
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!yale!husc6!cca!g-rh
From: g-rh@cca.CCA.COM (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,soc.men
Subject: Re: sexual selection and investment
Message-ID: <25669@cca.CCA.COM>
Date: 18 Mar 88 04:32:44 GMT
References: <1988Mar13.160941.22096@utzoo.uucp> <25527@cca.CCA.COM> <2403@saturn.ucsc.edu>
Reply-To: g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Computer Corp. of America, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 25

In article <2403@saturn.ucsc.edu> kevin@chromo.UUCP (Susan Nordmark) writes:

	... Re my comment that humans are markedly dimorphic

>Actually, humans are only moderately dimorphic. Examples of species
>with a strong degree of dimorphism are gorillas and baboons--in 
>these species males may be up to twice as massive as females.
>This doesn't happen among humans (of course what's scientifically
>relevant here is the degree of dimorphism within the sort of genetically 
>homogenous, small interbreeding populations that were the venue
>for evolution.

Terms like markedly and moderately depend very much on which apples
and oranges you are comparing.  If your context is the great apes,
humans are moderate.  If you context is mammals in general, humans
are well up there.  If your context is pair-bonding mammals with
paternal sharing in the support of the young, humans are highly
dimorphic.  And if your context is anglerfish, the dimorphism is
marginal [Natural science joke -- if you don't know, don't ask.]

-- 

In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
	Richard Harter, SMDS  Inc.