Edited to add quote:
99%?
A 3-second google turned up a 2015 Nature article, The effects of life history and sexual selection on male and female plumage colouration, saying, among other things, “females of many species are also highly ornamented”, and containing this nice chart, Plumage scores and plumage dichromatism in relation to key predictors in passerine birds, which appears to show that yes, most male birds are the more ornamented, but it’s nowhere near 99%.
Does someone read it differently? Have better info? Think Nature is EvoPsych-grade pish? See the problem with just winging stuff out there citation-free?
