Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Volumn 13, Issue 10, 1998, Pages 415-420

  Endler, John A ^a   Basolo, Alexandra L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COURTSHIP; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNAL;

ECOLOGY; EVOLUTION; FEMALE; MALE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NATURAL SELECTION; NONHUMAN; REVIEW; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 0031704452     PISSN: 01695347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01471-2     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Burley, N. (1985) The organization of behavior and the evolution of sexually selected traits, in Avian Monogamy (Gowaty, P.A. and Mock, D.W., eds), pp. 22-44, American Ornithologists' Union Publication 37.
2. West-Eberhard, M-J. (1984) Sexual selection, competitive communication, and species-specific signals in insects, in Insect Communication (Lewis, T., ed.), pp. 283-324, Academic Press.
3. Christy J.H. Mimicry, mate choice, and the sensory trap hypothesis. Am. Nat. 146:1995;171-181.
4. Kirkpatrick M. Sexual selection by female choice in polygynous animals. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 18:1987;43-70.
5. Basolo A.L. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science. 250:1990;808-810.
6. Basolo A.L. A further examination of a pre-existing bias favouring a sword in the genus Xiphophorus. Anim. Behav. 50:1995;365-375.
7. Basolo A.L. Phylogenetic evidence for the role of a pre-existing bias in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B. 259:1995;307-311.
8. Endler J.A., McLellan T. The processes of evolution: towards a newer synthesis. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19:1988;395-421.
9. Endler J.A. Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. Am. Nat. 139(Suppl.):1992;S125-S153.
10. Ryan M.J., Rand A.S. The sensory basis of sexual selection for complex calls in the Túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus (sexual selection for sensory exploitation). Evolution. 44:1990;305-314.
11. Ryan M.J. Sexual selection, sensory systems and sensory exploitation. Oxf. Surv. Evol. Biol. 7:1990;157-195.
12. Guilford T., Dawkins M.S. Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Anim. Behav. 42:1991;1-14.
13. Guilford T., Dawkins M.S. Receiver psychology and the design of animal signals. Trends Neurosci. 16:1993;430-436.
14. Enquist M., Arak A. Selection of exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic senses. Nature. 361:1993;446-448.
15. Hurd P.L., Wachtmeister C.A., Enquist M. Darwin's principle of antithesis revisited - a role for perceptual biases in the evolution of intraspecific signals. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B. 259:1995;201-205.
16. Kirkpatrick M., Ryan M.J. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature. 350:1991;33-38.
17. Johnstone R.A. Sexual selection, honest advertisement and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol. Rev. 70:1995;1-65.
18. Kirkpatrick M. Good genes and direct selection in the evolution of mating preferences. Evolution. 50:1996;2125-2140.
19. Andersson M., Iwasa Y. Sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11:1996;53-58.
20. Endler J.A. Variation in the appearance of guppy color patterns to guppies and their predators under different visual conditions. Vision Res. 31:1991;587-608.
21. Endler J.A., Théry M. Interacting effects of lek placement, display behavior, ambient light and color patterns in three neotropical forest-dwelling birds. Am. Nat. 148:1996;421-452.
22. Ryan M.J., Wilczynski W. Evolution of intraspecific variation in the advertisement call of a cricket frog (Acris crepitans, Hylidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. London. 44:1991;249-271.
23. Marchetti K. Dark habitats and bright birds illustrate the role of the environment in species divergence. Nature. 362:1993;149-152.
24. Sherman P.W., Wolfenbarger L.L. Genetic correlations as tests for sensory exploitation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10:1995;246-247.
25. Holland B., Rice W.R. Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution. 52:1998;1-7.
26. Basolo A.L., Endler J.A. Sensory biases and the evolution of sensory systems. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10:1995;489.
27. Johnstone R.A. Female preference for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition. Nature. 372:1994;172-175.
28. Lande R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 78:1981;3721-3725.
29. Ryan M.J., Rand A.S. Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of biases past. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B. 340:1993;187-195.
30. Ryan M.J., Rand A.S. Female responses to ancestral advertisement calls in Túngara frogs. Science. 269:1995;390-392.
31. Shaw K. Phylogenetic tests of the sensory exploitation model of sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10:1995;117-120.
32. Christy J.H. Pillar function in the fiddler crab Uca beebei. (II) Competitive courtship signalling. Ethology. 78:1988;113-128.
33. Proctor H.C. Sensory exploitation and the evolution of male mating behaviour: a cladistic test using water mites (Acari: Parasitengona). Anim. Behav. 44:1992;745-752.
34. Endler J.A. Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B. 340:1993;215-225.
35. Endler J.A. The color of light in forests and its implications. Ecol. Monogr. 63:1993;1-27.
36. Dawkins M.S., Guilford T. Sensory bias and the adaptiveness of female choice. Am. Nat. 148:1996;937-942.
37. Lythgoe, J.N. (1979) The Ecology of Vision, Oxford University Press.
38. Lythgoe J.N., Partridge J.C. Visual pigments and the acquisition of visual information. J. Exp. Biol. 146:1989;1-20.
39. Chittka L.et al. Opponent colour coding is a universal strategy to evaluate the photoreceptor inputs in Hymenoptera. J. Comp. Physiol. Ser. A. 170:1992;545-563.
40. Chittka L., Menzel R. The evolutionary adaptation of flower colors and the insect pollinators' color vision systems. J. Comp. Physiol. Ser. A. 171:1992;171-181.
41. Arak A., Enquist M. Hidden preferences and the evolution of signals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B. 340:1993;207-213.
42. Enquist M., Arak A. Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature. 372:1994;169-172.
43. Dawkins M.S., Guilford T. An exaggerated preference for simple neural network models of signal evolution? Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B. 261:1995;357-360.
44. Alexander R.A. Evolutionary change in cricket acoustical communication. Evolution. 16:1962;443-467.
45. Hinde, R.A. (1970) Animal Behaviour, A Synthesis of Ethology and Comparative Psychology (2nd edn), McGraw-Hill.
46. Barlow, G.W. (1977) Modal action patterns, in How Animals Communicate (Sebeok, T.A., ed.), pp. 98-134, Indiana University Press.
47. Weary D.M., Guilford T., Weisman R.G. A product of discriminative learning may lead to female preferences for elaborate males. Evolution. 47:1993;333-336.
48. Houde A.E. Evolution by sexual selection - what can population comparisons tell us? Am. Nat. 141:1993;796-803.
49. Ryan M.J., Keddy-Hector A. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am. Nat. 139(Suppl.):1992;S4-S35.
50. Bennet-Clark H.C. The mechanism and efficiency of sound production in mole crickets. J. Exp. Biol. 51:1970;519-652.
51. Dusenbery, D.B. (1992) Sensory Ecology: How Organisms Acquire and Respond to Information, W.H. Freeman.
52. Fleishman L.J. The influence of the sensory system and the environment on motion patterns in the visual displays of Anoline lizards and other vertebrates. Am. Nat. 139(Suppl.):1992;S36-S61.
53. Hasson O. Cheating signals. J. Theor. Biol. 167:1994;223-238.