Close

Species that are highly attractive or different have higher risks of extinction compared to those that blend similarly with the rest, a new study finds.

A research published this week in the journal Nature reported that sexual selection in ancient animals determined which species will survive or go extinct.

Peacocks, for example, have evolved with big colorful tails. The bigger their tails, the more attractive they become to the opposite sex.

Also, paleontologists ruled that the huge horns and bone frills common in triceratops were meant to woo potential mates and not necessarily to defend or attack an enemy.

Sexual Dimorphism

David Punzalan and David Hosken, researchers at the Center for Ecology and Conservation at the University of Exeter in the UK, have defined sexual dimorphism as the obvious differences in male and female physiology, behavior, and morphology.

In Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest, sexual dimorphism has become closely related to sexual selection, a phenomenon in which animals choose their partners based on its sex-specific viability.

There are two contrasting evolution models related to sexual selection. One suggests that dimorphism actually helps species adapt to their environment; thus, making them less likely to become extinct. The other states that exaggerated physical traits make them a target for predators.

Risk Of Extinction

As a result, species with greater sexual or physical differences went extinct for up to 10 times compared to species with typical appearances.

"The evolutionary costs of such traits help to enforce the honesty of the associated displays, but can also reduce the fitness of populations in general and thereby increase the risk of [the] population," the researchers wrote.

Fossils of 93 species of ostracods that existed some 84 million years ago during the Late Cretaceous period were analyzed based on their physical traits and the approximate time of extinction.

Researchers found that male ostracods, also known as seed shrimp, evolved heavily in terms of their appearance to the point that they missed on other survival factors.

The research "provides a strong indication, and the first good documentation from the fossil record, that sexual dimorphism tends to increase extinction risk," said Jonathan Payne, a geological sciences professor at Stanford University.

However, Payne further said that information from the fossilized ostracods may not necessarily apply to human beings and other animals. Researchers cited the ostracods' size and their ability to regulate body temperature in water as major limitations of the study.

ⓒ 2018 TECHTIMES.com All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.</s>A recent study from the Center for Ecology and Conservation at the University of Exeter in the UK has found out that being a highly attractive species can increase the risk of its extinction.

The study further explains that the differences in appearance between males and females of the same species, which is called sexual dimorphism, can actually make an animal go extinct, instead of ensuring survival by making them more attractive mates.

The researchers concluded that there is up to 10 times more chance for species with greater sexual or physical differences to go extinct.

However, Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest explains that animals choose their partners based on its sex-specific viability.

Sexual dimorphism can bring about differences in color, shape, size, and structure in some animals and plants.

The best example of sexual dimorphism can be seen in peacocks. The males have elaborate tails with bright colors, while the females are dull and have shorter feathers. The bigger the tail of the male peacock, the more attractive it becomes to the peahen.

Other research has found that huge horns and bone frills in some dinosaurs were meant to make them more attractive to their mates, rather than being used in fights with other males.

The current study shows that developing pretty features might come at a huge cost to some species.

"The evolutionary costs of such traits help to enforce the honesty of the associated displays, but can also reduce the fitness of populations in general and thereby increase the risk of [the]population," the researchers of University wrote, according to Tech Times.

The research was published in the journal Nature this week.

The researchers studied fossils of 93 species of ostracods, which are also known as seed shrimps. These shrimps lived 84 million years ago. In the study, the team looked at their physical traits and the approximate time of extinction.

They concluded that male ostracods, also known as seed shrimp, evolved heavily in terms of their appearance to the point that they missed out on other survival factors.

Jonathan Payne, a geological sciences professor at Stanford University also pointed out that this theory might be only applicable to ostracods and not to human beings and other animals. Also, the researchers said that the ostracods' size and their ability to regulate body temperature were major hurdles for the study.</s>After heading out on multiple job interviews, Susan, a university junior recently approached me with an observation. She noticed that attractive women like herself and her friends were not getting job offers, particularly if the interviewer was male. Since all the research suggests that attractive employees generally have an advantage over their more homely counterparts, I wasn’t sure what to make of her observation. Then, this week, video emerged of motivational speaker Tony Robbins claiming that #MeToo has led male employers to shy away from hiring attractive women, and that these employers are, instead, opting to hire less qualified men over highly qualified attractive women. Is this really happening, and, if so, what should attractive women do?

While it is both illegal and unethical to hire less qualified men in lieu of highly qualified good-looking women, it is certainly possible that this backlash against attractive women is a real thing and an unfortunate consequence of #MeToo. Robbins argument for why attractive women were being shunned by employers started with his suggestion that women were using #MeToo to gain significance by attacking others. (Robbins later apologized for his comments). According to Robbins, one consequence of these ‘attacks’ was that men were reluctant to hire women, particularly attractive women. He didn’t spell out exactly why these employers weren’t hiring beautiful women, but presumably, it was because these women would be more likely to 'attack' their male employers, or perhaps their attractiveness would make them more believable if they did bring charges. Or maybe the employers felt that they, themselves, would be tempted by the attractive woman. Specifically, this is what Robbins told the crowd at his seminar,

I call on Robbins to let us know who these employers are who are hiring less qualified men over more qualified women. It's gender discrimination, it is illegal, and they certainly shouldn't be allowed to continue with this practice. Most media has focused on Robbins criticism of #MeToo victims, but has anyone asked him for the names of these dozen discriminating men?

What Does Research Say About Attractive Women And Harassment?

It's unlikely that Robbins' dozen friends are the only men practicing this type of gender discrimination. In fact, research suggests that most of us typically associate attractive women with sexual harassment. People generally believe that attractive individuals are more likely to be sexually harassed, and people are more likely to believe sexual harassment charges when they come from an attractive employee. However, Robbins’ friends and other employers should know that researchers have also found that attractive women are actually less likely to label certain behaviors (like sexual joking, requests for romantic or sexual relationships, and touching and grabbing) as sexually harassing. That is, attractive women are less likely to think harassing behaviors are actually harassment. The researchers explain that since attractive women may be more accustomed to flattery and other flirtations from men, they may be less likely than unattractive women to label these behaviors sexual harassment. By this theory, attractive women are less likely to bring sexual harassment allegations, not that this should be a consideration in hiring.

What Should Attractive Women Do?

Good-looking men and women are generally perceived as more intelligent, they're more likely to be hired, and they typically earn more money than those who are less attractive - at least before #MeToo. One study followed MBA graduates who had each been rated on their physical attractiveness on a five point scale. Ten years after their graduation, attractive men earned an additional $2600 for each additional unit of attractiveness, and attractive women outearned unattractive women by $2150 for each additional unit of attractiveness. There was a monetary advantage if you could make yourself look attractive.

However, in the #MeToo era, attractive women may be penalized for their good looks. Susan, the university junior (not her real name) told me that she had interviewed for six different receptionist jobs to help pay college expenses. Three of the jobs were with male interviewers and three were with female interviewers. She felt that all of the interviews went really well, but she only received job offers from the three female interviewers. The three male interviewers declined her. It obviously could be just random chance that only the women offered her jobs, but since she was also hearing stories of from her attractive female friends, she began to suspect that men just weren't hiring attractive women.
A study in Nature shows species which are visually unusual or attractive go extinct at higher rates.