A myopic view of sexual selections

• Autores: Thomas Getty
• Localización: Trends in ecology and evolution, ISSN 0169-5347, Vol. 18, Nº 3, 2003, pág. 108
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • I hope that the readers of TREE will not be discouraged from reading Marlene Zuk's marvellous book Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex from Animals [ 1 ] by reviewer Roger Short's failure to be inspired [ 2 ]. Unfortunately, Roger does not do full justice to his subject, and his somewhat myopic view of the book seen through Australian spectacles might irritate some non-Australian readers. My confidence in Roger as a reviewer began to be shaken by numerous trivial and irrelevant factual errors. Zuk certainly did not study at Oxford under the late Bill Hamilton; she studied at the University of Michigan. Fancy stating that it is a factual error to describe a blastocyst invisible to the naked eye and in diapause as an embryo smaller than your little finger and in suspended animation; a blastocyst is an embryonic stage, something invisible to the naked eye would be smaller than my little finger, and diapause is a kind of suspended animation. And then Roger tops it off by including in his list of factual errors Zuk's assertion that feminism has more to offer biology than biology has to offer to feminism. I am afraid that I found this book review rather uninspiring.