Male and Female Nipples as a Test Case for the Assumption that Functional Features Vary Less than Nonfunctional Byproducts
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.
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.
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.
Morphological variation in a feature should not be used by itself to infer whether or not the feature is functional or under selection.
KeywordsFunctional adaptation Selection strength Byproduct Nipple Variation
Compliance with Ethical Standards
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Gould, S. J. (1987). Freudian slip. Natural History, 96, 14–21.Google Scholar
- Houle, D. (1992). Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics, 130(1), 195–204.Google Scholar
- 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
- Lloyd, E. A. (2005). The case of the female orgasm: Bias in the science of evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Rosen, P. P. (2001). Rosen's breast pathology (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
- 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
- Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar