A growing body of evidence has begun to reveal flaws in the traditional assumption of female passivity and lack of discrimination after copulation has begun. William Eberhard has compiled an impressive array of research on the ability of females to shape the outcome of mating. He describes studies of many different cryptic mechanisms by which a female can accept a male for copulation but nevertheless reject him as a father. Evidence from various fields indicates that such selectivity by females may be the norm rather than the exception. Because most post-copulatory competition between males for paternity is played out within the bodies of females, female behavior, morphology, and physiology probably often influence male success in these contests. Eberhard draws examples from a diversity of organisms, ranging from ctenophores to scorpions, nematodes to frogs, and crickets to humans.Cryptic female choice establishes a new bridge between sexual selection theory and reproductive physiology, in particular the physiological effects of male seminal products on female reproductive processes, such as sperm transport, oviposition, and remating. Eberhard interweaves his review of previous studies with speculation on the consequences of this theoretical development, and indicates promising new directions for future research.
Not my favorite writing but a giant in the field of CFC and helpful to read of so many examples, possible mechanisms, and alternative hypotheses refuted.
Full review to come. Recommended with reservations. It's worth a read, but it has serious problems. Even though it's full of important useful information, it's also marred by the author's wilful ignorance of physiology and microbiology, and by his choice to repeat the pseudoscientific nonsense spread/popularized by others (examples of the latter abound, and most of them are about animal behavior).
An excellent read. Fantastic review of interesting natural history and call to arms for further study of post-copulatory sexual selection. I was sad to see no consideration that female physiology could be plastic in its responses (as opposed to having set thresholds), since he notes repeatedly how male physiology (e.g. number of sperm in ejaculate) is flexible.