Book Review

An Introduction to Behavioural Ecology. By J. R. Krebs and N. B. Davies. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1981, 292 pp., $16.50 paper.

Britain may have lost her empire, but for what it is worth, she seems to be doing just fine in producing good, young behavioral ecologists (or evolutionary ecologists, or sociobiologists, call them what you will). John Krebs and Nicholas Davies are two of the best representing this re- markably vigorous group. Their latest book, fol- lowing a successful edited volume in 1978, is essentially a primer, intended for middle-level undergraduates. In some ways, it succeeds ad- mirably: Profusely illustrated with both photos and graphs, it is written in a simple, direct style that conveys the excitement of the field. Krebs and Davies are at pains to emphasize the ten- tative nature of many evolutionary premises, and they challenge readers to be critical of pos- sible laxness in the scientific method when ap- plying evolutionary biology to behavior. So far, so good.

Unfortunately, however, their book brings many disappointments as well. The organization does not flow as readily as it might: Altruism is introduced (rather precipitously) in Chapter 1, not to resurface again until Chapters 9 and 10. The authors announce on p. 12 that “no one has studied the genetic basis for copulation time in the male dungfly,” an oversight that seems un- likely to trouble most students, at least until they are exposed to G. Parker’s landmark work on

Received October 2, 1981. Address reprint requests to: David P. Barash, Depart-

ments of Psychology and Zoology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.

the economics of dungBy copulation-48 pages later. The special problems of eusociality in the Hymenoptera are alluded to in one sentence on p. 22, then abandoned until p. 189. The initial discussion of group selection omits D. S. Wil- son’s trait-group model entirely, then develops the idea, incongruously and inadequately, in the concluding chapter, seeking mainly to refute it with extensive material derived from unpub- lished work by A. Grafen-this is not only bad organization, but also smacks of personal pique rather than good pedagogy.

For a book laudably concerned with rigorous hypothesis testing, there is a disconcerting tend- ency to omit crucial data, necessary for such testing. For example, Figure 2.6 shows the im- pressive (but not unexpected) correlation of fe- male weight with female upper canine area in primates; then it is stated--but not shown-that for polygynous species (but not monogamous species), mule tooth size is larger than expected. Somehow, the data presented for females are supposed to have supported the sexual compe- tition hypothesis for tooth size dimorphism among males. A similar non sequitur occurs with the otherwise laudable discussion of T. G. Whi- tham’s work on habitat quality and reproductive success in aphids: after reviewing the findings in detail (with another figure), neither data nor figure is presented to support the crucial con- clusion, that reproductive success is equal in different habitats-i.e., a spatial ESS or ideal free distribution apparently obtains.

For a slim volume, we are given surprisingly

57

0162-3095/82/010057-02$02.75 Ethology and Sociobiology 3: 57-58 (1982) 8 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., 1982 52 Vanderbilt Ave., New York, New York 10017

58 Book Review

lengthy treatments of ecological constraints on communication, ritualization, optimal foraging, and predator-prey ecology. Yet, unaccounta- bly, there is no mention whatever of the Triversl Willard theory of sex ratio variation, and par- ent-offspring conflict theory receives only the merest nod. There are other egregious omis- sions, for example kin selection without J. Kur- land, group selection without M. Wade, and so- cial dominance without G. Hausfater. But most troubling to me-and, I think, to other readers of Ethology and Sociobiology-is the nontreat- ment of Homo sapiens. Not a single study in human sociobiology is developed, and no ref- erences appear to the recent work of R. Alex- ander, N. Chagnon, W. Durham, W. Irons, P. van den Berghe, or E. 0. Wilson. To be sure, quick-and-dirty mention of human behavior pops up perhaps six or seven times, such gems as blackberry picking as optimal foraging, money as reciprocity, and a fleeting mention of J. She- pher’s work on incest prohibition. It is never made clear, however, whether these offhand comments are meant as metaphors to help clarify a concept (in which case they may have some

pedagogical value), or as efforts to say some- thing meaningful about our own behavior (in which case the absence of forthright discussion of how biology and culture interact in our spe- cies render this volume potentially troublesome for naive undergraduates).

Given these problems, and the extraordinary price of $16.50-for a paperback of fewer than 260 text pages-I cannot recommend An Zntro- duction to Behavioural Ecology as a text. On the other hand, I hesitate to sound too critical, since, despite its flaws, there is something nifty and appealing about this cogent little book. It might prove more useful to instructors than to stu- dents, since it provides an appetizing sample of the British school. If I thought it was an evo- lutionarily stable strategy, I might suggest that each of you volunteer to review it for a journal . . . but, remember, this one is already taken.

David P. Barash Departments of Psychology and Zoology

University of Washington, Seattle