Advertisement

Male and Female Nipples as a Test Case for the Assumption that Functional Features Vary Less than Nonfunctional Byproducts

  • Ashleigh J. Kelly
  • Shelli L. Dubbs
  • Fiona Kate Barlow
  • Brendan P. Zietsch
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Objectives

Evolutionary researchers have sometimes taken findings of low variation in the size or shape of a biological feature to indicate that it is functional and under strong evolutionary selection, and have assumed that high variation implies weak or absent selection and therefore lack of function.

Methods

To test this assumption we compared the size variation (using a mean-adjusted measure of absolute variability) of the functional human female nipple (defined as the nipple-areola complex) with that of the non-functional human male nipple.

Results

We found that female nipples were significantly more variable than male nipples, even after controlling for body mass index, testing-room temperature, bust size in women, and chest size in men.

Conclusions

Morphological variation in a feature should not be used by itself to infer whether or not the feature is functional or under selection.

Keywords

Functional adaptation Selection strength Byproduct Nipple Variation 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

40750_2018_96_MOESM1_ESM.csv (9 kb)
ESM 1 (CSV 8 kb)

References

  1. An, H. Y., Kim, K. S., Yu, I. K., Kim, K. W., & Kim, H. H. (2010). The nipple-areolar complex: A pictorial review of common and uncommon conditions. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, 29(1), 949–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, P. W., Gangestad, S. W., & Matthews, D. (2002). Adaptationism--how to carry out an exaptationist program. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25(4; Discussion 504–453), 489–504.Google Scholar
  3. Apostolou, M. (2015). Female choice and the evolution of penis size. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(7), 1749–1750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broberg, P. (1999). Estimation of relative SD. Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy, 25(1), 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broberg, P. (2016) SAGx: Statistical Analysis of the GeneChip. R package version 1.44.0: http://home.swipnet.se/pibroberg/expression_hemsida1.html. Retrieved from https://bioconductor.org/biocLite.R
  6. Doucet, S., Soussignan, R., Sagot, P., & Schaal, B. (2007), The “smellscape” of mother's breast: Effects of odor masking and selective unmasking on neonatal arousal, oral, and visual responses. Developmental Psychobiology, 49, 129–138.  https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.20210.
  7. Doucet, S., Soussignan, R., Sagot, P., & Schaal, B. (2009). The secretion of areolar (Montgomery's) glands from lactating women elicits selective, unconditional responses in neonates. PLoS One, 4(10), e7579.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doucet, S., Soussignan, R., Sagot, P., & Schaal, B. (2012). An overlooked aspect of the human breast: Areolar glands in relation with breastfeeding pattern, neonatal weight gain, and the dynamics of lactation. Early Human Development, 88(2), 119–128.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2011.07.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frank, S. A., & Slatkin, M. (1992). Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 7(3), 92–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gould, S. J. (1987). Freudian slip. Natural History, 96, 14–21.Google Scholar
  12. Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of san Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 205(1161), 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 23–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Houle, D. (1992). Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics, 130(1), 195–204.Google Scholar
  15. Kopans, D. (2007). Breast anatomy and basic histology, physiology, and pathology. In D. Kopans (Ed.), Breast Imaging (3rd ed., pp. 7–43). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  16. Lessard, S. (1997). Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection revisited. Theoretical Population Biology, 52(2), 119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lloyd, E. A. (2005). The case of the female orgasm: Bias in the science of evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lukaski, H. C., Johnson, P. E., Bolonchuk, W. W., & Lykken, G. I. (1985). Assessment of fat-free mass using bioelectrical impendance measurements of the human body. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 41, 810–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lynch, V. J. (2008). Clitoral and penile size variability are not significantly different: Lack of evidence for the byproduct theory of the female orgasm. Evolution and Development, 10(4), 396–397.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-007-9103-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Montgomery, W. F. (1837). An exposition of the signs and symptoms of pregnancy, the period of human gestation, and the signs of delivery. London: Sherwood, Gilbert and Piper.Google Scholar
  21. Nicholson, B. T., Harvey, J. A., & Cohen, M. A. (2009). Nipple-areolar complex: Normal anatomy and benign and malignant processes. RadioGraphics, 29, 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Okasha, S. (2008). Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection—A philosophical analysis. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59(3), 319–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pateyjohns, I. R., Brinkworth, G. D., Buckley, J. D., Noakes, M., & Clifton, P. M. (2006). Comparison of three bioelectrical impedance methods with DXA in overweight and obese men. Obesity, 14(11), 2064–2070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pearson, K. (1896). Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution: III. Regression, heredity, and panmixia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 187, 253–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Perkins, O. M., & Miller, A. M. (1926). Sebaceous glands in the human nipple. American Journal of Obstetrics, 11, 789–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pomiankowski, A., & Moller, A. P. (1995). A resolution of the lek paradox. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 260(1357), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Porter, R. H., & Winberg, J. (1999). Unique salience of maternal breast odors for newborn infants. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 23, 439–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Price, G. R. (1972). Fisher's ‘fundamental theorem’ made clear. Annals of Human Genetics, 36(2), 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Puts, D. A., Dawood, K., & Welling, L. L. M. (2012a). Why women have orgasms: An evolutionary analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1127–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Puts, D. A., Welling, L. L. M., Burriss, R. P., & Dawood, K. (2012b). Men's masculinity and attractiveness predict their female partners' reported orgasm frequency and timing. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(1), 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rosen, P. P. (2001). Rosen's breast pathology (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  32. Segal, K., van Loan, M., Fitzgerald, P. I., Hodgdon, J., & Van Itallie, T. (1988). Lean body mass estimation by bioelectrical impedance analysis: A four-site cross-validation study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 47, 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith, D. M., Peters, T. G., & Donegan, W. L. (1982). Montgomery’s areolar tubercle. A light microscopic study. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 106, 60–63.Google Scholar
  34. Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Wallen, K., & Lloyd, E. A. (2008). Clitoral variability compared with penile variability supports nonadaptation of female orgasm. Evolution and Development, 10(1), 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zanardo, V., & Straface, G. (2015). The higher temperature in the areola supports the natural progression of the birth to breastfeeding continuum. PLoS One, 10(3), e0118774.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyThe University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia

Personalised recommendations