Species with huge weapons often show weak current selection on them.

Evidence

Populations in such a balance can persist for long periods of time, holding fast with massive structures. Were you to examine one of these populations and measure the strength of selection on weapons, you might find it is weak at best, or absent. When people look at species with huge weapons the last thing they expect to find is weak selection for weapons, but it shouldn’t be surprising. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 433

Categorization

• QUESTION: Counterintuitive — where else might strong traits coexist with weak ongoing selection?
• XREF: connects to: Some elaborate animal weapons are astonishingly cheap to produce and carry; Balancing selection normally curbs weapon size until some lineages escape into runaway arms races — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 22; Natural selection usually favors modest weapon size because cost offsets benefit — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 21 (+4 more)

Related

• Balanced selection keeps most animal weapons modest rather than extreme. (similarity 0.93)
• Extreme weapon size faces stabilizing, not open-ended, selection in real populations (similarity 0.92)
• Weapon size in animal species is under stabilizing selection, not open-ended directional selection (similarity 0.92)
• Natural selection usually favors modest weapon size because cost offsets benefit (similarity 0.90)
• Balancing selection normally curbs weapon size until some lineages escape into runaway arms races (similarity 0.90)
• When balancing selection fails, bigger weapons win every round and escalate the race. (similarity 0.89)
• Reproductive success, not survival, drives the largest animal weapons (similarity 0.88)
• Bigger weapons usually fail because their costs outweigh their benefits (similarity 0.88)
• Sexual selection can be far stronger than natural selection and drives weapon extremes (similarity 0.88)
• Predator weapons stay small because larger ones hinder hunting (similarity 0.88)
• Dueling plus competition and defensibility is the general rule for extreme weapons (similarity 0.88)
• Animal weapons evolved to extremes far beyond practical size (similarity 0.87)
• Each weapon-size increase resets the competitive baseline, ratcheting populations upward (similarity 0.87)
• Competition for reproduction drives evolution of nature’s biggest weapons (similarity 0.87)
• Sexual selection drives weapons to extremes because payoffs for winners are enormous. (similarity 0.87)

Broader Connections

• Weapon size in animal species is under stabilizing selection, not open-ended directional selection #corroborates (0.70) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 850
• Balancing selection normally curbs weapon size until some lineages escape into runaway arms races #qualifies (0.60) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 22
• Natural selection usually favors modest weapon size because cost offsets benefit #contradicts (0.55) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 21
• Deterrence amplifies the evolutionary payoff of extreme weapon size. #expands (0.55) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 387
• Losing the ecological context of competition can make extreme weapons vanish. #complicates (0.50) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 438
• Releasing soldiers from other tasks lets weapons evolve to extremes #qualifies (0.50) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 128