Predator weapons stay small because larger ones hinder hunting

Evidence

Carnivore teeth aren’t small because they couldn’t or didn’t evolve. They’re small because individuals with unusually large teeth performed poorly when hunting their particular prey. Teeth and other major structures are almost always subject to trade-offs—a balance of opposing forces of selection. Bigger weapons may be better for killing prey, but they may also prevent an animal from catching prey in the first place. Individuals with unusually large weapons surely crop up from time to time in predator populations, but their hindered performance at critical tasks such as overtaking prey causes them to fare poorly and, over time, these extreme weapon forms are likely to disappear. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 83

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 83
• XREF: connects to: Weapon size in animal species is under stabilizing selection, not open-ended directional selection — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 850; Ambush predators evolve large weapons because they strike rather than chase prey — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 956; Balancing selection normally curbs weapon size until some lineages escape into runaway arms races — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 22 (+9 more)

Related

• Extreme weapon size faces stabilizing, not open-ended, selection in real populations (similarity 0.89)
• Species with huge weapons often show weak current selection on them. (similarity 0.88)
• Ambush predators evolve large weapons because they strike rather than chase prey (similarity 0.88)
• Weapon size in animal species is under stabilizing selection, not open-ended directional selection (similarity 0.88)
• Bigger weapons usually fail because their costs outweigh their benefits (similarity 0.87)
• Human spear-point size is constrained by shaft balance and penetration requirements (similarity 0.87)
• Natural selection usually favors modest weapon size because cost offsets benefit (similarity 0.86)
• Cat weapons stayed moderate because agility and speed offset killing power (similarity 0.86)
• Reproductive success, not survival, drives the largest animal weapons (similarity 0.86)
• Deterrence amplifies the evolutionary payoff of extreme weapon size. (similarity 0.86)
• Balanced selection keeps most animal weapons modest rather than extreme. (similarity 0.86)
• Predator diversity is best explained by weapon adaptation to habitat and prey (similarity 0.86)
• Early human weapon points shrank rather than grew over time (similarity 0.85)
• Cat canines are piercing weapons vulnerable to side torque during hunts (similarity 0.85)
• Ambush predators depend on appendage speed more than body speed (similarity 0.85)

Broader Connections

• Natural selection usually favors modest weapon size because cost offsets benefit #corroborates (0.80) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 21
• Weapon size in animal species is under stabilizing selection, not open-ended directional selection #corroborates (0.75) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 850
• Animal weapons evolved to extremes far beyond practical size #contradicts (0.75) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 2
• Ambush predators evolve large weapons because they strike rather than chase prey #qualifies (0.70) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 956
• Balancing selection normally curbs weapon size until some lineages escape into runaway arms races #corroborates (0.70) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 22
• Weapons in arms races get so big they impair other bodily functions #complicates (0.65)