An experimental analysis of mate choice in the wren: A monomorphic, polygynous passerine

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 101-108

  Evans, Matthew R ^a,b   Burn, Joe L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Advertisement; Female choice; Sexual selection; Signaling; Troglodytes troglodytes; Wren

Indexed keywords

DISPLAY; MATE CHOICE; NEST QUALITY; TERRITORY; WREN;

TROGLODYTES TROGLODYTES; TROGLODYTIDAE;

EID: 0029730541     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/7.1.101     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Andersson M, 1982a. Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature 299:818-820.
2. Andersson M, 1982b. Sexual selection, natural selection and quality advertisement. Biol J Linn Soc 17:375-393.
3. Armstrong EA, 1955. The wren. London: Collins.
4. Evans MR, Hatchwell BJ, 1992. An experimental study of male adornment in the scarlet-tufted malachite sunbird: II. The role of the elongated tail in mate choice and experimental evidence for a handicap. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:421-427.
5. Fisher RA, 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
6. Garson PJ, 1978. A study of the territorial and breeding behaviour in the wren, Troglodytes troglodytes (L.) (PhD dissertation). Oxford: University of Oxford.
7. Garson PJ, 1980. Male behaviour and female choice: mate selection in the wren ? Anim Behav 28:491-502.
8. Grafen A, 1990a. Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J Theor Biol 144:473 -516.
9. Grafen A, 1990b. Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol 144: 517-546.
10. Grafen A, 1991. Modelling in behavioural ecology. In: Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 3rd ed (Krebs JR, Davies NB, eds). Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 5-31.
11. Guilford T, Dawkins MS, 1991. Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Anim Behav 42:1-14.
12. Johnstone RA, Grafen A, 1992. Error-prone signalling. Proc R Soc Ser B 248:229-233.
13. Kluijver HN, Ligtvoet J, van den Ouwelam C, Zegwaard F, 1940. De levenswijze van der Winterkoning, Troglodytes tr. troglodytes (L.). Limosa 13:1-51.
14. Lande R, 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:3721-3725.
15. Lessells CM, Boag PT, 1987. Unrepeatable repeatabilities: a common mistake. Auk 107:116-121.
16. Møller AP, 1988. Female choice selects for male sexual tail ornaments in the monogamous swallow. Nature 332:640-642.
17. O'Donald P, 1980. Genetic models of sexual selection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Ryan M, Fox JH, Wilczynski W, Rand AS, 1990. Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature 343: 66-67.
19. Svensson L, 1992. Identification guide to European passerines. Stockholm: Ugga.
20. Trivers RL, 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Sexual selection and the descent of man (Campbell B, ed). Chicago: Aldine; 136-179.
21. Zahavi A, 1975. Mate selection - a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205-214.
22. Zahavi A, 1977. The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). J Theor Biol 67:603-605.
23. Zahavi A, 1991. On the definition of sexual selection, Fisher's model, and the evolution of waste and signals in general. Anim Behav 42: 501-503.