Loading AI tools
hipótesis de la biologia evolutiva De Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
El principio del handicap es una hipótesis propuesta originalmente en 1975 por el biólogo Amotz Zahavi para explicar cómo la evolución puede hacer que se produzcan señales de buenas intenciones entre animales que tienen una motivación obvia para engañar al otro o para engañarse mutuamente.
El principio del handicap sugiere que esas señales deben conllevar un coste para el portador, pues tales señales consisten en alguna característica que no puede ser afrontada por otros individuos. Por ejemplo, en el caso de la selección sexual, la teoría sugiere que los individuos con gran eficacia biológica muestran este estatus mediante un comportamiento desventajoso o una constitución física que merma sus cualidades en otros terrenos. La idea central es que los rasgos de la selección sexual actúan como señales de ostentación, mostrando la capacidad de darse el lujo de desperdiciar un recurso simplemente por derroche. El receptor sabe que el rasgo indica calidad porque individuos de calidad inferior no pueden permitirse el lujo de tales derroches extravagantes. Por ejemplo, la cola del pavo real permite discernir la calidad del macho, pero al mismo tiempo es una extremidad engorrosa y pesada.
1.^ Zahavi, A. (1975) Mate selection - a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53: 205-214.
2.^ Zahavi, A. (1977) The cost of honesty (Further remarks on the handicap principle). Journal of Theoretical Biology 67: 603-605.
3.^ Zahavi, A. and Zahavi, A. (1997) The handicap principle: a missing piece of Darwin's puzzle. Oxford University Press. Oxford. ISBN 0-19-510035-2
4.^ Review by Andrew Pomiankowski, A. & Iwasa, Y. 1998. Handicap Signaling: Loud and True? Evolution, 52, 928-932
5.^ a b c d Johnstone, R.A. (1995) Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence" Biological Reviews 70 1-65.
6.^ Johnstone, R.A. (1997) The evolution of animal signals, In Behavioural Ecology: an evolutionary approach 4th ed., J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies, editors. Blackwell. Oxford, pp:155-178.
7.^ Maynard Smith, J. and Harper, D. (2003) Animal Signals. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-852685-7.
8.^ Davis, J. W. F., & O’Donald, P. (1976). Sexual selection for a handicap: A critical analysis of Zahavi’s model. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 57, 345–354.
9.^ Eshel, I. (1978). On the handicap principle — a critical defence. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 70, 245–250
10.^ Kirkpatrick, M (1986) The handicap mechanism of sexual selection does not work. American Naturalist 127:222-240.
11.^ Pomiankowski, A. (1987). Sexual selection: The handicap principle does work sometimes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond., Series B, 231, 123–145.
12.^ Maynard Smith, J. (1976). Sexual selection and the handicap principle. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 57, 239–242
13.^ Maynard Smith, J. (1978). The handicap principle — a comment. Journal of Theoretical Biology,70, 251–252
14.^ Maynard Smith, J. (1985). Mini review: Sexual selection, handicaps and true fitness. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 115, 1–8.
15.^ Grafen, A. (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology 144:517-546.
16.^ Spence, A.M. (1973) Job Market Signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics 87:355-374.
17.^ Getty, T. (1998) Handicap signalling: when fecundity and viability do not add up. Anim. Behav. 56, 127–130
18.^ Getty, T. (1998) Reliable signalling need not be a handicap. Anim. Behav. 56, 253–255
19.^ Getty, T. (2002) Signaling health versus parasites. Am. Nat. 159,363–371
20.^ Getty. T (2006) Sexually selected signals are not similar to sports handicaps. Trends Ecol. & Evol 21, 83-88
21.^ Nur, N. and Hasson, O. (1984) Phenotypic plasticity and the handicap principle. J. Theor. Biol. 110, 275–297
22.^ Godfray, H.C.J. 1991. Signalling of need by offspring to their parents, Nature 352 328-330.
23.^ Yachi, S. 1995. How can honest signalling evolve? The role of the handicap principle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series B 262 283-288.
24.^ Adams, E.S. & Mesterton-Gibbons, M. 1995. The cost of threat displays and the stability of deceptive communication. Journal of Theoretical Biology 175 405-421.
25.^ Kim, Y-G. 1995. Status signalling games in animal contests. Journal of Theoretical Biology 176, 221-231.
26.^ Enquist, M. 1985. Communication during aggressive interactions with particular reference to variation in choice of behaviour. Animal Behaviour 33 1152-1161.
27.^ Rodríguez-Girones, M.A., Cotton, P.A. & Kacelnik, A. 1996. The evolution of begging: signaling and sibling competition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 93:14637-14641.
28.^ Lachmann, M. & Bergstrom, C.T. 1998. Signalling among relatives. II. Beyond the tower of babel. Theoretical Population Biology, 54:146-160.
29.^ Bliege Bird, R. and Smith, E. A. (2005). Signalling theory, strategic interaction, and symbolic capital. Current Anthropology, 46(2), 221-248.
30.^ Folstad, I. & Karter, A.K. (1992) Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. American Naturalist 139:603-622.
31.^ Wedekind, C. and Folstad, I. (1994) Adaptive or non-adaptive immunosuppression by sex hormones? American Naturalist 143:936-38.
32.^ Folstad, I. & Sakrstein, F. (1996) Is male germ line control creating avenues for female choice? Behavioral Ecology 8:109-112
33.^ Roberts, M.L., Buchanan K.L., Evans, M.R. (2004). Testing the immunocompetence handicap hypothesis: a review of the evidence. Animal Behaviour. 68:227-239
34.^ For footage of this, see Attenborough, D. (1990) The Trials of Life, Episode 10. BBC
Datos: Q1428558Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
