Only a minority of males can afford to build full-size weapons

Evidence

Even though a history of sexual selection has led to evolution of extravagant weapons in the species, only a very few individuals actually achieve full weapon splendor, and lots of the males produce pathetic renditions of the structure. If males with the biggest weapons win in every sense of the word—they win the fights, they get the girls, and they sire the offspring—then why don’t all of the males produce full-sized weapons? The answer is simple. They cannot afford them. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 326

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Poor-quality males pay steeper costs for large weapons and so invest less — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 797; Big weapons only benefit males with the reserves to wield them effectively — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 355; Modern naval weapons cost billions and thus only wealthy nations can field them — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 396 (+5 more)

Related

• Poor-quality males pay steeper costs for large weapons and so invest less (similarity 0.95)
• Big weapons only benefit males with the reserves to wield them effectively (similarity 0.93)
• Weapon growth widens the gap between the best- and worst-armed males. (similarity 0.90)
• Weapons evolve only when reproductive benefits exceed costs (similarity 0.89)
• Weapon costliness keeps signals honest by excluding weaker males (similarity 0.89)
• Bigger weapons usually fail because their costs outweigh their benefits (similarity 0.88)
• Most male ungulates never reproduce because weapon costs are so extreme (similarity 0.87)
• Reproductive success, not survival, drives the largest animal weapons (similarity 0.87)
• Weapon size in animal species is under stabilizing selection, not open-ended directional selection (similarity 0.87)
• Sexual selection can be far stronger than natural selection and drives weapon extremes (similarity 0.86)
• Sexual selection drives weapons to extremes because payoffs for winners are enormous. (similarity 0.86)
• Weapon expense is what keeps signals of fighting ability honest (similarity 0.86)
• Weapons grow late because development prioritizes mandatory survival expenses first (similarity 0.85)
• Natural selection usually favors modest weapon size because cost offsets benefit (similarity 0.85)
• Extreme weapon size faces stabilizing, not open-ended, selection in real populations (similarity 0.85)

Broader Connections

• Big weapons only benefit males with the reserves to wield them effectively #corroborates (0.80) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 355
• Weapon costliness keeps signals honest by excluding weaker males #expands (0.65)
• Weapon growth widens the gap between the best- and worst-armed males. #expands (0.60) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 386
• Costly advanced weapons deter rivals just like large animal weapons #corroborates (0.60) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 592
• Modern naval weapons cost billions and thus only wealthy nations can field them #exemplifies (0.55) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 396
• Bigger weapons usually fail because their costs outweigh their benefits #expands (0.55)
• Most male ungulates never reproduce because weapon costs are so extreme #exemplifies (0.50) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 963