Heterospecific mating preferences for a feather ornament in least auklets

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 187-192

  Jones, Ian L ^a   Hunter, Fiona M ^b  

^a MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Aethia pusilla; Alcinae; Auklet; Feather ornament; Fisherian runaway; Mate choice; Sensory exploitation; Sexual selection; Species recognition; Viability indicator

Indexed keywords

LEAST AUKLET; MATING PREFERENCE; ORNAMENT; SEXUAL SELECTION;

AETHIA CRISTATELLA; AETHIA PUSILLA; AETHIA PYGMAEA;

EID: 0031947219     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/9.2.187     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Andersson M, 1986. Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40:804-816.
2. Andersson M, 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
3. Balmford A, Read AF, 1991. Testing alternative models of sexual selection through female choice. Trends Ecol Evol 6:274-276.
4. Balmford AP, Thomas A, 1992. Swallowing ornamental asymmetry. Nature 359:487-488.
5. Balmford A, Thomas ALR, Jones IL, 1993. Aerodynamics and the evolution of long tails in birds. Nature 361:628-631.
6. Barnard P, 1990. Male tail length, sexual display intensity and female sexual response in a parasitic African finch. Anim Behav 39:652-656.
7. Basolo AL, 1990. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250:808-810.
8. Burley N, 1981. The evolution of sexual indistinguishability. In: Natural selection and social behaviour: recent research and new theory (Alexander RD, Tinkle DW, eds). New York: Chiron Press; 121-137.
9. Burley N, 1986. Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am Nat 127:415-445.
10. Byrd GV, Day RH, 1984. The avifauna of Buldir Island, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Arctic 39:109-118.
11. Fisher RA, 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
12. Friesen VL, Baker AJ, Piatt JF, 1996. Phylogenetic relationships within the Alcidae (Aves: Charadriiformes) inferred from total molecular evidence. Mole Biol Evol 13:359-367.
13. Hill GE, 1994. Geographic variation in male ornamentation and female preferences in the house finch: a comparative test of models of sexual selection. Behav Ecol 5:64-73.
14. Johnstone RA, 1995. Sexual selection, honest advertisement, and the handicap principle: reviewing the evidence. Biol Rev 70:1-69.
15. Johnstone RA, in press. The tactics of mutual mate choice and competitive search. Behav Ecol Sociobiol.
16. Johnstone RA, Reynolds JD, Deutsch JC, 1996. Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution 50:1382-1391.
17. Jones IL, 1990. Plumage variability functions for status signalling in Least Auklets. Anim Behav 39:967-975.
18. Jones IL, 1992. Sexual selection and the evolution of extravagant traits in birds: problems with testing good genes models of sexual selection. Auk 109:198-200.
19. Jones IL, 1993a. Crested auklet. In: The birds of North America (Poole A, Stettenheim P, Gill F, eds). Philadelphia: The American Ornithologists Union.
20. Jones IL, 1993b. Least auklet. In: The birds of North America (Poole A, Stettenheim P, Gill F, eds). Philadelphia: The American Ornithologists Union.
21. Jones IL, 1993c. Sexual differences in bill shape and external measurements of crested auklefs Aethia cristatella. Wilson Bull 105:525-529.
22. Jones IL, Hunter FM, 1993. Mutual sexual selection in a monogamous seabird. Nature 362:238-239.
23. Jones IL, Montgomerie RD, 1991. Mating and remating of least auklets (Aethia pusilla) relative to ornamental traits. Behav Ecol 2:249-257.
24. Jones IL, Montgomerie RD, 1992. Least auklet ornaments: Do they function as quality indicators? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 30:43-52.
25. Kirkpatrick M, 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:1-12.
26. Kirkpatrick MT, Ryan MJ, 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33-38.
27. Lande R, 1980, Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34:292-305.
28. Lande R, 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Nad Acad Sci USA 78:3721-3725.
29. Lotem A, 1995. Secondary sexual ornaments as signals: the handicap approach and three potential problems. Proc Int Ethol Congr 23.
30. Maddison WP, Donoghue MJ, Maddison DR, 1984. Outgroup analysis and parsimony. Syst Zool 33:83-103.
31. Meyer A, Morrissey JM, Schartl M, 1994. Recurrent origin of a sexually selected trait in Xiphophorus fishes inferred from a molecular phylogeny. Nature 368:539-542.
32. Mourn T, Johansen S, Erikstad KE, Piatt JF, 1994. Phylogeny and Evolution of the auks (subfamily Alcinae) based on mitochondrial DNA sequences. Proc Nad Acad Sci USA 91:7912-7916.
33. Pomiankowski AN, 1988. The evolution of female mate preferences for male genetic quality. Oxf Surv Evol Biol 5:136-184.
34. Read AF, 1990. Parasites and the evolution of host sexual behaviour. In: Parasitism and host behaviour (Barnard CJ, Behnke JM, eds). London: Taylor and Francis; 117-157.
35. Ryan MJ, 1985. The Tungara frog. A study in sexual selection and communication. Chicago: Chicago of University Press.
36. Ryan MJ (ed), 1990. Sexual selection, sensory systems and sensory exploitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37. Ryan MJ, Fox JH, Wilczynski W, Rand SA, 1990. Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosis. Nature 343: 66-67.
38. Ryan MJ, Rand AS, 1990. The sensory bias of sexual selection for complex calls in the tungara frog, Physalaemus pustulosis (sexual selection for sensory exploitation). Evolution 44:305-314.
39. Ryan MJ, Rand AS, 1993. Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of biases past. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 340:187-195.
40. Ryan MJ, Wagner WE, 1987. Asymmetries in mating preferences between species: female swordtails prefer heterospecific males. Science 236:595-597.
41. Savalli UM, 1989. Female choice. Nature 339:432.
42. Schluter D, Price T, Mooers A, Ludwig D, 1997. Likelihood of ancestor states in adaptive radiation. Evolution 51:1699-1711.
43. Shaw K, 1995. Phylogenetic tests of die sensory exploitation model of sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 10:117-120.
44. Strauch JG Jr, 1985. The phylogeny of the Alcidae. Auk 102:520-539.