In the wild (or in captivity, I suppose), have animals been observed choosing mating partners that have consistent features?
Like, in Africa, Dr. Important Primate Researcher noted that this male chimpanzee prefers to mate with smaller females, while that male chimpanzee prefers to mate with larger ones?
Or in Siberia, Dr. Important Canine Scientist noted that his male wolf prefers females with a lighter fur color, while that male wolf prefers to mate with females with a darker fur color?
And I’m a bit curious as to why your OP only suggested examples of individual male preferences in sexual selection, when AFAICT the key aspect of sexual selection in nonhuman animals tends to be female preferences.
I don’t know about that. In birds there are many examples where the male has elaborate feather patterns and behaviors to attract females, who evidently make the choice. In herding animals there may be a dominant male and harem of females, but he has to be the strongest to fend-off other males, so again the females choose him for protection and procreation.
It certainly exists, and many species have specific mating or courtship rituals, not just mammals. Birds, insects, fish, crustaceans, you name it. A lot of it is documented.
Are you asking, do most male animals physically force the mating act upon chosen females by means of their superior physical size/strength? AFAIK the answer is “no”.
True, but not to the point where a species will head into extinction because they didn’t want to mate as they didn’t find their “type”.
Humans will and do today. Not quite to extinction (obviously) but if you look at a lot of people today who have never been married and never will due to various factors…families are shrinking and altogether disappearing.
In the animal kingdom, where there does exist these “preferences” too, I don’t believe it’s anywhere quite to the extent to that of humans. They will mate no matter what if they have to. Humans won’t. Many humans would choose to just die alone.
I have rabbits and as soon as you introduce a male to a female, no matter how ugly he is, they’ll shag within seconds and be done.
I can’t find it in a search, but vaguely recall either a thread or a column with a title like “Are Swans Rapists?” where the consensus was that female swans aren’t determined to die virgins, but are holding out for a mate with specific physical or behavioral traits. So yeah, female swans apparently have a “type.”
The way it is supposed to go is that the swans mate for life at a young age. The courtship rituals presumably maximize the chances of reproductive success. As for the allegations of rape, it turns out in that case the lady was raped by a god.
Any particular characteristic, male or female, could end up being selected for. That characteristic could be considered to be a “preference” or a “type”. Assuming that the offspring will be both male and female you might end up with that preference being reinforced by both genders. i.e. The males offspring will receive the genes for the characteristic and at the same time the females offspring receive the genes for the preference (or vice-versa)
And on we go. As long as the inherited trait remains useful to the creature (or at least not a mortal hindrance) it stands a chance of proliferating.
It is tautological that attractive characteristics are attractive, but the question is whether such characteristics are (or were at one point) correlated with reproductive success, meaning numerous and fit offspring.
That is evolution in a nutshell. I don’t believe the genes for a such a characteristic could spread to the majority without being correlated with reproductive success.
But we’re not just talking about animals being attracted to particular traits. We’re talking about different animals preferring different traits. Peahens are attracted to cocks with big fancy tails, but all or nearly all peahens share that preference: No peahen would refer to fancy tails as being “her type”. But if some hens prefer big green tailfeathers, and others prefer big blue tailfeathers, then that could be said to be a “type”.
Most human observations rely on visual information like size of mate, color, …
Whereas in my experience, animals rely much more on their smell and hearing (both of which extend beyond human limits in terms of sensitivity and resolution).
Since, we cannot perceive these cues, I am not sure we will make good observers of what is being selected.
Evolution is just the scenario you suggest writ large.
At some point an individual or a limited group preference selected for a characteristic that became more widespread. In other cases it never got further than that individual preference, perhaps because that preference or that characteristic was not inherited but I don’t doubt that such preferences exist.
Evolution could be that scenario writ large. If the different preferences persist long enough, and are at least partly genetic, then you could eventually see a split into a Blue Peacock species and a Green Peacock species. But more often, when a species splits, it’s because of geographic separation and either random founder effects, or different external environments.