Is there more than one definition of natural selection?

Sexual Selection
Special form of natural selection based on an organism's ability to mate. Some animals possess characteristics that are more attractive to potential mates, such as the distinctive plumage of some male birds. Individuals with such characteristics mate at higher rates than those without, ensuring more next generation offspring will inherit the desirable trait. As generations procreate the desirable trait becomes increasingly common, further boosting the sexual disadvantage for individuals who lack the desired trait.
National GeographicSexual selection: Selection which promotes traits that will increase an organism's success in mating and ensuring that its gametes are successful in fertilization. This is distinct from natural selection which acts simply on traits which influence fecundity and survival.
Natural History Collections: Glossary P-ZSexual selection: A type of natural selection that acts differently on males and females of the same species. Traits involved in mate competition (e.g., canines, flashy peacock tail) are products of sexual selection.
http://web.missouri.edu/~flinnm/courses/mah/glossary.htmThe theory of sexual selection was first proposed by Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species, though it was primarily devoted to natural selection. A later work, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex dealt with the subject of sexual selection exhaustively, in part because Darwin felt that natural selection alone was unable to account for certain types of apparently non-competitive adaptations, such as the tail of a male peacock.
Sexual selection - WikipediaSince the discipline itself cannot agree whether Sexual Selection is distinct from or is a type of Natural Selection, agreement in this thread is dubious.

Precisely. It is all under the umbrella of Natural Selection.Hoot, I fail to see why you insist on separating Sexual Selection out from under the umbrella of Natural Selection. I have seen snippets here and there but nowhere in either of the threads we've spawned so far on this subject exactly why you want to make this separation.Can you clearly define where the differences are as you see them? Why would sexual selection not be considered another form of Natural Selection?

Because I see Natural Selection more as a process then an outcome. To me, the outcome is Evolution, a change in allele frequency in the population over generations.In Edit: The processes of Natural Selection yield differential reproductive success. Or not, as we will see later.Differential reproductive success can be impacted by lots of different processes, sexual selection being one of them; being eaten by predators because I’m one of the slow runners in the population is another. Different mechanisms, yes, but the processes of Natural Selection in action in both cases. What is the reason for the bottleneck? An Ice age? A new predator? One of the other processes of Natural Selection acting in the extreme? One of Quetzal’s “field of bullets” scenarios?The processes of Natural Selection can create these bottlenecks. Drift could be an outcome of the process.I understand separating discriminate from indiscriminate processes (thank you Dr. Millstein). I will give Quetzal his due in seeing the "field of bullets" differentiated from discriminate selective pressures, though just barely. And I can see your separation of drift from selection in that drift is an indiscriminate process. Because it is an indiscriminate process? No, that can’t be it.Because the sexual selective process is different from, say, an environmental selective process? Or a “Microbial” selective process? Do not all have equally the effect of changing allele frequency in the next generation? Are not all these types of “selections” based upon phenotype and are they not all types of discriminate sampling? OK, not too likely, but why not? It’s a good thought experiment.So, due to the lower availability of mates than would be available in a larger population the process of Sexual Selection results in everyone being selected. This is what I don’t see. If the sexual selection process selects everyone in this unique situation how is this not Natural Selection and in some way any different than if the process yielded some differential among the breeders? If only one individual had some slight differential in success, would this then constitute Natural Selection where 0 differential does not?Edited by AZPaul3, : You never get these ideas while your typing or going over your 16th proofread. Only after submitting does the idea hit you like a finger in a light socket.Edited by AZPaul3, : Then, again, sometimes you have to correct a whopping stupidity.

Wait one, Mod. Are you saying that since the Peahen has not seen every cock in existence everywhere on the planet that any mating that takes place is non-random but not Sexual Selection?Since when did Sexual Selection have to include all members of the species everywhere? Is it not sufficient for the hen to select one of the cocks from those few available in the vicinity to qualify as Sexual Selection?

You may be right. I may have read too much into the example.Thus the question.Maybe a revisit: Sexual Selection is non-random, based on selection of phenotype traits. But there can be non-random mating, selection not based upon phenotype traits. Selection based on what for an example?

Like Corn pollen wafting over the field. Random sexual contact without regard to traits other than species. Understood. This is non-random, agreed, but you imply this is not Sexual Selection? Regardless of their porclivities, satisfied or not, such mate selection is based upon chosing among the available phenotypes, is it not? I need help here. Other than forced breeding (artificial selection), I cannot see a wild sexual population engaged in non-random breeding that could not be considered Sexual Selection. And I would consider male-to-male combat where the female has no choice but to accept the Alpha male as a mode of Sexual Selection.Can you give me an example of non-random mating in a sexual population that would not be considered Sexual Selection?Is Sexual Selection confined only to selections based on heritable traits? Do acquired traits not impact Sexual Selection?Just so you all understand, I honestly appreciate the education I am receiving here.

Am I just dense or what? No, don't answer that!How the (*^#@ does this not count as Sexual Selection? So the population is small and isolated. Does this mean that the mating rituals do not take place? Do the males not fight for the right to breed? Do the peacocks not display because they live over the hill in an isolated rift instead of in the valley with the main body?

Regardless of geography, separation, population size, isn't random mating just non-selective mating? Again the corn pollen wafting over the field without regard to which other corn plant it lands and fertilizes? Plants are big on sex afterall, just not very selective. Isn't this the definition of random mating: non-selective?

No he doesn't. I don't know Deer Meeses. Do Deer Meeses have any selection rituals or do they just jump on anything that comes along? If they just jump then random mating is taking place. Or is this considered non-random soley due to geographic constraints? Then by the same token (back to the corn plant) since the pollen cannot reach over into the next county where other corn plants live is this also non-random? I don't think so.Isn't random mating indiscriminate sampling (Millstein)? Do not non-selective jumping Deer Mice practice random mating regardless of the fact that they do not have such opportunity with everyone in the population equally? If you don't have an equal opportunity with only one female over the next hill is this then non-random? Is this whole subject nothing but a statistical exercise?

OK.