Erratum to ‘Bateman's principles and human sex roles’
Authors: Gillian R. Brown, Kevin N. Laland, Monique Borgerhoff Mulder
Journal: Trends in Ecology & Evolution (2013)

In our TREE article [1Brown G.R. et al.Bateman's principles and human sex roles.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009; 24: 297-304Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (182) Google Scholar], the Im:If values provided in Table 1 were unfortunately incorrect. We stated the correct formulae for calculating I in the notes that accompanied Table 1 (i.e., Im = variance in male RS divided by the square of the mean male RS, If = variance in female RS divided by the square of the mean female RS), but gave the incorrect Im:If values due to human error. As these values were not used in any of the analyses, this error does not affect any of the results or conclusions of the article. The correct Im:If values are provided in the table below, and all other values remain unchanged.Tabled 1Table 1 Mean and variance in reproductive success (RS) of males and females in 18 populations (Nm, number of males; Meanm, mean male lifetime RS; Varm, variance in male RS; Nf, number of females; Meanf, mean female lifetime RS; Varf, variance in female RS; Vm:Vf, ratio of variance in male RS to female RS; Im:If, ratio of the 'opportunity for selection' in males and females, where I = variance in RS divided by the square of the mean RS; Refs, reference numbers are provided in the original article)CountryPopulation/ethnic groupNmMeanmVarmNfMeanfVarfVm:VfIm:IfMating systemRefsFinland1745–1900 genealogies1253.461383.57.60.790.84Monogamy80Norway1700–1900 genealogies9554.78.59914.58.31.020.94Monogamy81Pitcairn IslandGenealogical records1454.623.61274.723.21.021.06Monogamy82IranYomut Turkmen2675.18.12163.97.11.140.67Polygyny/monandry83Sweden1825–1896 genealogies12012.111.510502.49.71.181.55Monogamy84DominicaLocal population1304.414.3124511.61.231.59Monogamy85TanzaniaPimbwe1386.091546.17.31.241.27Serial monogamy36USAGeneral Social Survey10992.02.313442.01.81.271.28Monogamy86Central African RepublicAka296.38.6346.25.21.661.60Polygyny/monandry87BotswanaDobe !Kung355.18.6624.74.91.771.49Serial monogamy34TanzaniaHadza544.39.8443.65.11.931.35Polygyny/serial monandry88VenezuelaYanomamo2793.710.13803.44.42.301.94Polygyny/monandry89ChadDazagada448.615.0336.46.52.311.28Polygyny/monandry90ChadArabs2310.314.4228.35.12.821.83Polygyny/monandry90BrazilXavante623.612.1443.63.93.103.10Polygyny/serial monandry39KenyaKipsigis8210.924.42606.65.94.181.52Polygyny/monandry91ParaguayAche486.415.1257.83.64.226.23Serial monogamy35MaliDogon446.110.7483.22.34.751.28Polygyny/serial monandry92 Open table in a new tab Bateman's principles and human sex rolesBrown et al.Trends in Ecology & EvolutionApril 20, 2009In BriefIn 1948, Angus J. Bateman reported a stronger relationship between mating and reproductive success in male fruit flies compared with females, and concluded that selection should universally favour 'an undiscriminating eagerness in the males and a discriminating passivity in the females' to obtain mates. The conventional view of promiscuous, undiscriminating males and coy, choosy females has also been applied to our own species. Here, we challenge the view that evolutionary theory prescribes stereotyped sex roles in human beings, firstly by reviewing Bateman's principles and recent sexual selection theory and, secondly, by examining data on mating behaviour and reproductive success in current and historic human populations. Full-Text PDF Open Access