The absence of conspicuous sexual signals in some primates, particularly humans and vervets, has been interpreted as evidence that females of these species are ‘concealing’ ovulation from males. This conclusion is unjustified: the null hypothesis of no adaptation, that the absence of conspicuous sexual signals has resulted from the absence of selective pressures maintaining such adaptations, is both more parsimonious and better fits the facts. The related suggestion that there has been adaptation among females to conceal ovulation from their own consciousness is also unjustified. What, then, maintains sexual signals in those species that do have them? Many proposed hypotheses for the function of sexual signals do not account for their most puzzling feature: their conspicuousness. According to current theory on the evolution of communication, two explanations seem most plausible: conspicuous sexual signals function to communicate to distant receivers and/or to convince reluctant receivers. There is some empirical support for both hypotheses, but not overwhelming support for eit