Phylogenetic influence on mating call preferences in female tungara frogs, Physalaemus pustulosus

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 57, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 945-956

  Ryan, Michael J ^a   Rand, A Stanley ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b Smithsoman Tropical Research Institute   (Panama)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALLING BEHAVIOR; FROG; MATE CHOICE; PHYLOGENETICS;

AMPHIBIA; ANURA; PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS; REPTILIA;

EID: 0033119332     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/anbe.1998.1057     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Arnold, S. J., Verrell, P. A. & Tilley, S. G. 1996. The evolution of asymmetry in sexual isolation: A model and a test case. Evolution, 50, 1024-1033.
2. Basolo, A. L. 1990. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science, 250, 808-810.
3. Basolo, A. L. 1995. A further examination of a pre-existing bias favouring a sword in the genus Xiphophorus. Animal Behaviour, 50, 365-375.
4. Brooks, D. R. & McLennan, D. A. 1991. Phylogeny, Ecology and Behaviour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5. Brooks, D. R., McLennan, D. A., Carpenter, J. M., Weller, S. G. & Coddington, J. A. 1995. Systematics, ecology and behaviour. Bioscience, 45, 687-695.
6. Brown, J. L. 1982. The adaptationist program. Science, 217, 884-885.
7. Cannatella, D. C. & Duellman, W. E. 1984. Leptodactylid frogs of the Physalaemus pustulosus species group. Copeia, 1984, 902-921.
8. Cannatella, D. C., Hillis, D. M., Chippendale, P. T., Weigt, L., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. 1998. Phylogeny of frogs of the Physalaemus pustulosus species group, with an examination of data incongruence. Systematic Biology, 47, 311-355.
9. Christy, J. H. 1995. Mimicry, mate choice and the sensory trap hypothesis. American Naturalist, 146, 171-181.
10. Christy, J. H. & Salmon, M. 1991. Comparative studies of reproductive behaviour in mantis shrimp and fiddler crabs. American Zoologist, 31, 329-337.
11. Cocroft, R. C. & Ryan, M. J. 1995. Patterns of mating call evolution in toads and chorus frogs. Animal Behaviour, 49, 283-303.
12. Endler, J. A. 1992. Signals, signal conditions and the direction of evolution. American Naturalist, 131, S125-S153.
13. Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist, 125, 1-15.
14. Fleishman, L. J. 1992. The influence of the sensory system and the environment on motion patterns in the visual displays of anoline lizards and other vertebrates. American Naturalist (Supplement), 139, 36-61.
15. Gould, S. J. & Vrba, E. S. 1982. Exaptation: A missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8, 4-15.
16. Guilford, T. & Dawkins, M. S. 1993. Receiver psychology and the design of animal signals. Trends in Neuroscience, 16, 430-436.
17. Harnad, S. 1987. Categorical Perception: The Groundwork of Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Harvey, P. H. & Pagel, M. D. 1991. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Höglund, J. 1989. Size and plumage dimorphism in lekking birds: A comparative analysis. American Naturalist, 134, 72-87.
20. Huey, R. B. & Bennett, A. F. 1987. Phylogenetic studies of co- adaptation: Preferred temperatures versus optimal performance temperatures of lizards. Evolution, 41, 1098-1115.
21. Kaneshiro, K. Y. 1980. Sexual isolation, speciation and the direction of evolution. Evolution, 34, 437-444.
22. Kaneshiro, K. Y. 1983. Sexual selection and direction of evolution in the biosystematics of Hawaiian Drosophila. Annual Review of Entomology, 28, 161-178.
23. Kirkpatrick, M. & Ryan, M. J. 1991. The paradox of the lek and the evolution of mating preferences. Nature, 350, 33-38.
24. Lanyon, S. M. 1992. Interspecific brood parasitism in blackbirds: A phylogenetic perspective. Science, 255, 77-79.
25. Lorenz, K. 1941. Comparative studies of the motor patterns of Anatinae (translated by R. Martin 1971). Studies in Animal and Human Behaviour, 2, 14-18.
26. Losos, J. B. 1994. An approach to the analysis of comparative data when a phylogeny is unavailable or incomplete. Systematic Biology, 43, 117-123.
27. Losos, J. B. & Miles, D. B. 1994. Adaptation, constraint, and the comparative method: Phylogenetic issues and methods. In: Ecological Morphology (Ed. by P. C. Wainwright & S. M. Reilly), pp. 60-98. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. McClintock, W. J. & Uetz, G. W. 1996. Female choice and preexisting bias: Visual cues during courtship in two Schizocosa wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Animal Behaviour, 52, 167-181.
29. McLennan, D. A. & Brooks, D. R. 1991. Parasites and sexual selection: A macroevolutionary perspective. Quarterly Review of Biology, 66, 255-286.
30. McLennan, D. A. & Ryan, M. J. 1997. Responses to conspecific and heterospecific olfactory cues in the swordtail Xiphophorus cortezi (Pisces: Poeciliidae). Animal Behaviour, 54, 1077-1088.
31. Maddison, W. P. 1991. Squared-change parsimony reconstructions of ancestral states for continuous-valued characters on a phylogenetic tree. Systematic Zoology, 40, 304-314.
32. Maddison, W. P. & Maddison, D. R. 1992. MacClade. Version 3. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer.
33. Martins, E. P. (Ed.) 1996a. Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34. Martins, E. P. 1996b. Phytogenies, spatial autoregression, and the comparative method: A computer simulation test. Evolution, 50, 1750-1765.
35. Martins, E. P. & Garland, T. 1991a. CMAP - Comparative Method Analysis Program. Available at http://evolution.uoregon.edu/ -emartins/programs/cmap.html.
36. Martins, E. P. & Garland, T. 1991b. Phylogenetic analyses of the correlated evolution of continuous characters: A simulation study. Evolution, 45, 534-557.
37. Martins, E. P. & Hansen, T. F. 1997. Phytogenies and the comparative method: A general approach to incorporating phylogenetic information into the analysis of interspecific data. American Naturalist, 149, 646-667.
38. Mitter, C., Farrell, B. & Futuyma, D. J. 1991. Phylogenetic studies of insect-plant interactions: Insights into the genesis of diversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 6, 290-293.
39. Nelson, D. A. & Marler, P. 1990. The perception of bird song and an ecological concept of signal space. In: Comparative Perception (Ed. by E. C. Stebbins & M. A. Berkeley), pp. 443-478. New York: J. Wiley.
40. Olmand, K. E. 1997. Correlated rates of molecular and morphological evolution. Evolution, 51, 1381-1393.
41. Proctor, H. C. 1991. Courtship in the water mite Neumania papillator: Males capitalize on female adaptations for predation. Animal Behaviour, 42, 589-598.
42. Proctor, H. C. 1992. Sensory exploitation and the evolution of male mating behaviour: A cladistic test using water mites (Acari: Parasitengona). Animal Behaviour, 44, 745-752.
43. Prum, R. O. 1990. Phylogenetic analysis of the evolution of display behaviour in neotropical manikins (Aves: Pipridae). Ethology, 84, 202-231.
44. de Queiroz, A. & Wimberger, P. H. 1993. The usefulness of behaviour for phytogeny estimation: Levels of homoplasy in behavioural and morphological characters. Evolution, 47, 46-60.
45. Rand, A. S., Ryan, M. J. & Wilczynski, W. 1992. Signal redundancy and receiver permissiveness in acoustic mate recognition by the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. American Zoologist, 32, 81-90.
46. Reeve, H. K. & Sherman, P. W. 1993. Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. Quarterly Review of Biology, 68, 1-32.
47. Ryan, M. J. 1990. Sensory systems, sexual selection, and sensory exploitation. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, 7, 157-195.
48. Ryan, M. J. 1996. Phylogenetics and behaviour: Some cautions and expectations. In: Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behaviour (Ed. by E. Martins), pp. 1-21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49. Ryan, M. J. 1997. Sexual selection and mate choice. In: Behavioural Ecology, An Evolutionary Approach (Ed. by J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies), pp. 179-202. Oxford: Blackwell.
50. Ryan, M. J. & Rand, A. S. 1993a. Phylogenetic patterns of behavioural mate recognition systems in the Physalaemus pustulosus species group (Anura: Leptodactylidae): The role of ancestral and derived characters and sensory exploitation. Linnean Society Symposium Series, 14, 251-267.
51. Ryan, M. J. & Rand, A. S. 1993b. Sexual selection and signal evolution: The ghost of biases past. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B, 340, 187-195.
52. Ryan, M. J. & Rand, A. S. 1993c. Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. EvolUtion, 47, 647-657.
53. Ryan, M. J. & Rand, A. S. 1995. Female responses to ancestral advertisement calls in the túngara frog. Science, 269, 390-392.
54. Ryan, M. J. & Wagner, W. E., Jr 1987. Asymmetries in mating preferences between species: Female swordtails prefer heterospecific mates. Science, 236, 595-597.
55. Searcy, W. A. 1992. Song repertoire and mate choice in birds. American Zoologist, 32, 71-80.
56. Schluter, D., Price, T., Moores, A. Ø. & Ludwig, D. 1997. Likelihood of ancestral states in adaptive radiation. Evolution, 51, 1699-1711.
57. Shaw, K. 1995. Phylogenetic tests of the sensory exploitation model of sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 117-120.
58. Swofford, D. L. & Maddison, W. P. 1987. Reconstructing ancestral character states under Wagner parsimony. Mathematical Bioscience, 87, 199-229.
59. Tinbergen, N. 1963. On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift FüR Tierpsychologie, 20, 410-433.
60. Weary, D. M., Guilford, C. & Weisman, R. G. 1993. A product of discriminative learning may lead to female preferences for elaborate males. Evolution, 47, 333-336.
61. West-Eberhard, M. J. 1979. Sexual selection, social competition, and evolution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 123, 222-234.
62. Wilczynski, W., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. 1995. The processing of spectral cues by the call analysis system of the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Animal Behaviour, 49, 911-929.
63. Wilkinson, L. 1991. SYSTAT: The System for Statistics. Evanston, Illinois: SYSTAT.
64. Wimberger, P. H. & de Queiroz, A. 1996. Comparing behavioural and morphological characters as indicators of phylogeny. In: Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behavior (Ed. by E. Martins), pp. 206-233. Oxford: Oxford University Press.