The proof of the exercise will be in any reaction I get to the giveaway in terms of reviews, sales and so on. When my agent did much the same thing for the e-version of ‘The Science of Middle-earth’ it had rather little effect. But we’ll see.

I’ve noted that friends are beginning to recommend By The Sea it to their friends. When people I don’t know start recommending it to other people I don’t know (and that’s very hard to estimate from here), and that happens a lot, then – and only then – will it take off. You never know. It’s not for want of trying.

The great thing is you must have a huge following to get that many books downloaded! The bad thing is that you’ve lost 557 x (0.67/$2.99), or approximately $1114 worth of royalties…

It starts with the statement:

1. – “Suppose male births are less common than female.”

Surely this requires that genetic and ecological factors have already set this situation – and we might add, ‘… because in this niche this has worked best.’

He continues:

2. – “A newborn male then has better mating prospects than a newborn female, and therefore can expect to have more offspring.”

This is weird (perhaps because of the wording). – No matter how many males there are, there can be no more offspring than females producing them – and less males to females makes no real difference (the popular idea is one stallion to a herd of mares). – Of course a new born male with ‘advantage in the reproduction game’ (like Hominus Croximax) can have the attributes to produce more of his own offspring than those less advantaged. – But the ‘reproduction game’ is one of competition – and the less males there are in relation to females, reduces the effectiveness of competitive advantage. However, in this statement there is no mention of advantage – only concerned with numbers of males to females.

3. – “Therefore parents genetically disposed to produce males tend to have more than average numbers of grandchildren born to them.”

Here he ignores his first premise – in which the parental output is disposed to produce females (“Suppose male births are less common than female.”) – and for whatever reason – genetic ecological or anything else you can think of.

4. – “Therefore the genes for male-producing tendencies spread, and male births become more common.”

Again denying what is implicit in the first premise – that in this particular niche, evolution prefers that male births are less common.

5. – “As the 1:1 sex ratio is approached, the advantage associated with producing males dies away. The same reasoning holds if females are substituted for males throughout. Therefore 1:1 is the equilibrium ratio.

Fisher’s Principle may demonstrates that, where a 1:1 ratio suits a niche, then, by his means, a deviation from that will result in self regulation back to that 1:1 ratio – this in addition to whatever factors that my have set that 1-1 situation in the first place. – Then there is re-enforcement – so double the reason for there to be a 1:1 ratio. This may account for what appears to be a predominant ratio in life of 1:1.

Therefore we might say: – If environmental and genetic constraints are removed, which previously held that male births are less common than female, then by Fishers Principle, a 1:1 sex ratio will become the norm – and holds if females are substituted for males throughout. – On the other hand, if the constraints remain, then the ratio will remain as it is is – to suit the particular niche.

However, I think there is an easier answer to the question.

1. There appears to be reasonable genetic constancy – so if, for genetic and ecological reasons, a ratio other than 1:1 is established in a species, the genetic constituents involved will not change that easily. – A ratio say 1 male : 5 female, as in the American Alligator, will remain as that.

2. Clearly though, a 1:1 ratio being the commonest ratio, there is disadvantage in all other ratios. – What might be the disadvantage of low male numbers when (with the idea 1 stallion to a herd of mares) there might not seem at first to be one ?

3. Environment change generally has equal effect on male and female members of populations.

4. Then, in populations with low male to female sex ratio, if dramatic environment change occurs such that a large proportion of the population transpires, there is risk that no males survive. – Only a 1:1 ratio gives the best chance that both males and females survive.

5. Therefore species that do have low male to female sex ratio have yet to meet with environment change such that would be great enough to eliminate all males – even though they tread a fine line between advantage gained by supporting less males, and risk of being vulnerable if dramatic environment change does occur.

6. Over the course of history in the evolution game then, a 1:1 strategy should win out.

My overall conclusions are, that if females are substituted for males throughout, then there is a scientific basis for women’s lib – and in a monogamous society the variety Hominus Croximax is stuck to a 1:1 ratio regardless of his undoubted and advantageous prowess.

‘Suppose male births are less common than female. A newborn male then has better mating prospects than a newborn female, and therefore can expect to have more offspring. Therefore parents genetically disposed to produce males tend to have more than average numbers of grandchildren born to them. Therefore the genes for male-producing tendencies spread, and male births become more common. As the 1:1 sex ratio is approached, the advantage associated with producing males dies away.
The same reasoning holds if females are substituted for males throughout. Therefore 1:1 is the equilibrium ratio.’

Your question about why apes and hominins (note – apes are hominids these days, so what you mean is hominins) didn’t evolve from New-World monkeys is interesting and can be answered in a number of ways. Mostly, though, you have to get away from the thought that any evolution into anything else is somehow inevitable: ask yourself, why should apes and hominins have evolved from New-World monkeys, and had they done so, would they ‘be’ in any sense equivalent to apes and hominins?

I guess what you mean to ask is this – why wasn’t the niche of large, sometimes bipedal and intelligent primate filled in the New World as it was in the Old? I suspect that there was something to do with the ecology and the varieties of other animals and plants present that predisposed the creation and filling of this niche in the Old World that simply wasn’t there in the New. What these differences might have been I have no idea.

I wonder though if you realise just how signficant the number 557 is in Norfolk folklore? It used to be – in historic time – the number of the bus which circumnavigated the Inner Ring Road in Norwich between the city centre and UEA* – via the old residences at Fifers Lane (once RAF Horsham St Faith)…

Many long standing friendships – and short standing hangovers – were engendered thanks to this bus route. There was even (very briefly) a punk band called the “557s” – possibly with a satirical apostrophe – who performed at least twice….

I take this as a very positive omen…

(* UEA: University of East Anglia or University of Extraordinary Abbreviations – take your pick)