The obstetrical dilemma hypothesis: there's life in the old dog yet

The term ‘obstetrical dilemma’ was coined by Washburn in 1960 to describe the trade-off between selection for a larger birth canal, permitting successful passage of a big-brained human neonate, and the smaller pelvic dimensions required for bipedal locomotion. His suggested solution to these antagonistic pressures was to give birth prematurely, explaining the unusual degree of neurological and physical immaturity, or secondary altriciality, observed in human infants. This proposed trade-off has traditionally been offered as the predominant evolutionary explanation for why human childbirth is so challenging, and inherently risky, compared to that of other primates. This perceived difficulty is likely due to the tight fit of fetal to maternal pelvic dimensions along with the convoluted shape of the birth canal and a comparatively low degree of ligamentous flexibility. Although the ideas combined under the obstetrical dilemma hypothesis originated almost a century ago, they have received renewed attention and empirical scrutiny in the last decade, with some researchers advocating complete rejection of the hypothesis and its assumptions. However, the hypothesis is complex because it presently captures several, mutually non-exclusive ideas: (i) there is an evolutionary trade-off resulting from opposing selection pressures on the pelvis; (ii) selection favouring a narrow pelvis specifically derives from bipedalism; (iii) human neonates are secondarily altricial because they are born relatively immature to ensure that they fit through the maternal bony pelvis; (iv) as a corollary to the asymmetric selection pressure for a spacious birth canal in females, humans evolved pronounced sexual dimorphism of pelvic shape. Recently, the hypothesis has been challenged on both empirical and theoretical grounds. Here, we appraise the original ideas captured under the ‘obstetrical dilemma’ and their subsequent evolution. We also evaluate complementary and alternative explanations for a