By jove!! Why do alternative mating tactics assume so many different forms?

Tremendous diversity exists in the form of alternative mating tactics (AMTs) employed by males of many species. We develop a general framework in which to view alternatives that vary in (i) their frequency in the population, (ii) their fitness value with respect to the primary tactics, (iii) the extent to which the alternative tactic is site-fixed and (iv) the intrinsic ability of males to change tactics. The frequency and fitness value of alternatives should be influenced by Resource Holding Potential (RHP), which generally varies with age, size, and perhaps energy reserves. AMTs should be unequal in fitness value when RHP increases at an accelerating rate with age. “Subordinate AMTs” can result when various factors favor males attempting to reproduce before reaching the age with maximum RHP. An asymptotic relationship between age and RHP should result in most males in a population having essentially equal RHP. Several ways exist for males to partition the set of mating opportunities between two or more “equal AMTs.” Transient tactics may occur if (i) resources for females and territorial males differ and do not covary positively in their distribution, or (ii) local areas are so attractive to females that males effectively cannot defend them. We suggest Levins' (1968) “fitness set” analysis as a useful model predicting whether a male should specialize on a single tactic, or partition its effort between the two tactics.