So, a few days ago, a new research paper on The Evolution of Ejaculation Strategies was tossed off, wiped clean and mailed to American Naturalist for publication in September. The paper has some very interesting observations to make about the ejaculatory habits of certain species of animals, specifically the domestic fowl and the Arctic charr (pictured below).
In a nutshell, when the more attractive males of each species mate, they do so often, and they apportion fewer sperm to each partner in order ‘to maximise their chances of producing offspring across a range of sexual partners’. Conversely, mating much less frequently, the less attractive males may choose to allocate more sperm to each union, thus increasing their chances of becoming a daddy.
And that, so far, is about as far as they’ve got. Sam Tazzyman is one of the authors of the paper and a member of CoMPLEX, which, standing as it does for the Centre for Mathematics and Physics in the Life Sciences and Experimental Biology, is one of the worst acronyms in the history of science. Tazzyman hopes to give over further study to trying to discover whether this in any way affects female behaviour. Deep down he knows it probably doesn’t, but a man’s got to make a living.
The problem with this study – if you’re an editor of a tabloid, for example – is that it has absolutely no application to human society. Tazzyman is quite clear about this: ‘How this work applies to humans and other primates is not yet known.’ But then again, if you are the editor of a tabloid, you’re also professionally obliged to never let the facts stand in the way of a story.
Aah, a textbook example of how to turn a fairly dull scientific finding into a slightly prurient human interest story. The article begins, ‘Uglier men with fewer notches on their belts are likely to be more productive between the sheets, it is claimed.’ Yes, claimed by you, you ignorant hack!
The main problems with this giant leap from charr and fowl to modern man are as follows...
