There is an article in the Science and Technology section of the current issue of The Economist that has attracted my attention at once. According to recent research in evolutionary biology, or so the article claims, older men and younger women make good couples because they increase the fecundity of the species. In time, such couples lead to older women and more children. By comparison, younger men and older women do not make much biological sense, or so the article concludes. The reason is obvious, as well: older men are fertile whereas older women are not. The article is pleasing enough, especially to this old man, but it comes with a largish picture of a dodgy couple: a docile old geezer and a cagey chick sitting in a golf cart. Judging by the way she drapes her arm on his shoulder, they must be a couple. They are probably married, too. He must be about eighty and she must be about twenty. That is, he must be filthy rich. His claim to fame must be some silly patent or an equally silly but unyielding legal trick. And her claim to fame is long blond hair and long legs. To the credit of the mighty newspaper, she is far from buxom. That would be going over the top, given the scientific argument involved. Although the picture made me wince, and thus stay mum for a few days, it is clear the couple in it will not stay together much longer: due to his age, they simply cannot. Even if there are children among them, the woman in the picture will eventually grow older. Sooner or later, younger men will come to her rescue. Even if they have no offspring, the younger men must be credited for their assistance in this biological arrangement. At least indirectly, they will help increase the fecundity of the species. I bet evolutionary biology will take a while to get to this straightforward refinement.