Animal weapons evolved to extremes far beyond practical size

Evidence

For as long as I can remember I’ve been obsessed with big weapons, which is rather surprising given that I descend from a long line of Quakers. On field trips to the natural history museum it wasn’t birds or zebras that caught my eye; it was mastodons with curling tusks, or triceratops with five-foot-long horns. In every room, it seemed, loomed another species with a crazy protrusion jutting from its head, or from between the shoulder blades, or from the end of its tail. Gallic moose wielded twelve-foot-wide antlers, and arsinotheres had horns six feet long and a foot wide at the base. I couldn’t peel my eyes from these creatures. Why were their weapons so big? — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 2

Categorization

• DEFINE: Establishes the subject and names the concrete extreme-weapon examples like Gallic moose and arsinotheres that recur throughout the book.
• XREF: connects to: Weapons in arms races get so big they impair other bodily functions; Extreme weapon size faces stabilizing, not open-ended, selection in real populations; Balanced selection keeps most animal weapons modest rather than extreme. (+20 more)

Related

• Extreme weapon size faces stabilizing, not open-ended, selection in real populations (similarity 0.88)
• Species with huge weapons often show weak current selection on them. (similarity 0.87)
• Extreme weapons evolved independently across roughly three thousand species (similarity 0.87)
• Extreme weapon size is relative to body size, not absolute (similarity 0.87)
• Weapon size in animal species is under stabilizing selection, not open-ended directional selection (similarity 0.87)
• Animal weapons can evolve rapidly within just seven generations (similarity 0.87)
• Comparisons of animal and human weapons have a long scholarly tradition. (similarity 0.86)
• Balanced selection keeps most animal weapons modest rather than extreme. (similarity 0.86)
• Growing large weapons diverts resources and stunts other body parts (similarity 0.86)
• Reproductive success, not survival, drives the largest animal weapons (similarity 0.86)
• The same three ingredients trigger weapon evolution across wildly divergent animal clades (similarity 0.86)
• Weapons in arms races get so big they impair other bodily functions (similarity 0.86)
• Competition for reproduction drives evolution of nature’s biggest weapons (similarity 0.85)
• Predator weapons stay small because larger ones hinder hunting (similarity 0.85)
• The evolutionary drivers of animal weapons also explain human weapon elaboration. (similarity 0.84)

Broader Connections

• Releasing soldiers from other tasks lets weapons evolve to extremes #expands (0.85) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 128
• Extreme weapons evolved independently across roughly three thousand species #corroborates (0.80) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 15
• Competition for reproduction drives evolution of nature’s biggest weapons #expands (0.70) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 136