On Richerson and Boyd's Model of Cultural Evolution by Sexual Selection

Theoretical Population Biology

Volumn 61, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 73-81

  Nakajima, Ayako ^a   Aoki, Kenichi ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTION; MATE CHOICE; POPULATION MODELING; SEXUAL SELECTION;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; FEMALE; GENETIC SELECTION; GENOME IMPRINTING; HUMAN; MALE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

CULTURAL EVOLUTION; FEMALE; GENOMIC IMPRINTING; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, GENETIC; SELECTION (GENETICS); SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 0036483253     PISSN: 00405809     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/tpbi.2001.1556     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Andersson M. Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: Sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution. 40:1986;804-816.
2. Aoki K. A sexual-selection model for the evolution of imitative learning of song in polygynous birds. Am. Nat. 134:1989;599-612.
3. Aoki K., Feldman M. W., Kerr B. Models of sexual selection on a quantitative genetic trait when preference is acquired by sexual imprinting. Evolution. 55:2001;25-32.
4. Baker M. C., Cunningham M. A. The biology of bird-song dialects. Behav. Brain Sci. 8:1985;85-133.
5. Baker M. C., Spitler-Nabors K. J., Bradley D. C. Early experience determines song dialect responsiveness of female sparrows. Science. 214:1981;819-821.
6. Bakker T. C. M., Pomiankowski A. The genetic basis of female mate preferences. J. Evol. Biol. 8:1995;129-171.
7. Bateson P. Preferences for cousins in Japanese quail. Nature. 295:1982;236-237.
8. Boyd R., Richerson P. J. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. 1985;Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
9. Buss D. M. Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behav. Brain Sci. 12:1989;1-49.
10. Catchpole C. K. Bird song, sexual selection and female choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2:1987;94-97.
11. Catchpole C. K., Dittami J., Leisler B. Differential responses to male song repertoires in female songbirds implanted with oestradiol. Nature. 312:1984;563-564.
12. Cavalli-Sforza L. L., Feldman M. W. Cultural Transmission and Evolution: A Quantitative Approach. 1981;Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton.
13. Darwin C. The Descent of Man. 1871;John Murray, London.
14. Dugatkin L. A. Sexual selection and imitation: Females copy the mate choice of others. Am. Nat. 139:1992;1384-1389.
15. Fisher R. A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. 1958;Dover, New York.
16. Freeberg T. M., Duncan S. D., Kast T. L., Enstrom D. A. Cultural influences on female mate choice: An experimental test in cowbirds, Molothrus ater. Anim. Behav. 57:1999;421-426.
17. Galef B. G. Jr. Imitation in animals: History, definitions, and interpretations of data from the psychological laboratory. Zentall T., Galef B. G. Jr. Social Learning. 1988;3-28 Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
18. Grant B. R., Grant P. R. Cultural inheritance of song and its role in the evolution of Darwin's finches. Evolution. 50:1996;2471-2487.
19. Graziano W. G., Jensen-Campbell L. A., Shebilske L. J., Lundgren S. R. Social influence, sex differences, and judgments of beauty: Putting the interpersonal back in interpersonal attraction. J. Pers. Social Psychol. 65:1993;522-531.
20. Hall D. W., Kirkpatrick M., West B. Runaway sexual selection when female preferences are directly selected. Evolution. 54:2000;1862-1869.
21. Hewlett B. S., Cavalli-Sforza L. L. Cultural transmission among Aka pygmies. Am. Anthropol. 88:1986;922-934.
22. Heyes C. M. Imitation, culture and cognition. Anim. Behav. 46:1993;999-1010.
23. Higashi M., Takimoto G., Yamamura N. Sympatric speciation by sexual selection. Nature. 402:1999;523-526.
24. Hoglund J., Alatalo R. V., Gibson R. M., Lundberg A. Mate-choice copying in black grouse. Anim. Behav. 49:1995;1627-1633.
25. Ihara Y., Aoki K. Sexual selection by male choice in monogamous and polygynous human populations. Theor. Popul. Biol. 55:1999;77-93.
26. Immelmann K. The influence of early experience upon the development of social behaviour in estrildine finches. Voous K. H. Proceedings, XVth International Ornithological Congress. 1972;316-338 Brill, Leiden.
27. Iwasa Y., Pomiankowski A. Continual change in mate preferences. Nature. 377:1995;420-422.
28. Iwasa Y., Pomiankowski A., Nee S. The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The "handicap" principle. Evolution. 45:1991;1431-1442.
29. Jensen-Campbell L. A., Graziano W. G., West S. G. Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: Do nice guys really finish last? J. Pers. Social Psychol. 68:1995;427-440.
30. Kalmus H., Maynard Smith S. Some evolutionary consequences of pegmatypic mating systems (imprinting). Am. Nat. 100:1966;619-635.
31. Kirkpatrick M. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution. 36:1982;1-12.
32. Kirkpatrick M. Evolution of female choice and male parental investment in polygynous species: The demise of the "sexy son" Am. Nat. 125:1985;788-810.
33. Kirkpatrick M., Dugatkin L. A. Sexual selection and the evolutionary effects of copying mate choice. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 34:1994;443-449.
34. Kroodsma D. E. Reproductive development in a female songbird: Differential stimulation by quality of male song. Science. 192:1976;574-575.
35. Laland K. N. The evolutionary consequences of sexual imprinting. Evolution. 48:1994a;477-489.
36. Laland K. N. Sexual selection with a culturally transmitted mating preference. Theor. Popul. Biol. 45:1994b;1-15.
37. Lande R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 78:1981;3721-3725.
38. Lorenz K. Der Kumpan in der Umwelt des Vogels. J. Ornithol. 83:1935;137-213.
39. Marler P. Birdsong and speech development: Could there be parallels? Am. Sci. 58:1970;669-673.
40. O'Donald P. Inbreeding as a result of imprinting. Heredity. 15:1960;79-85.
41. O'Donald P. Genetic Models of Sexual Selection. 1980;Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
42. Owens I. P. F., Rowe C., Thomas A. L. R. Sexual selection, speciation and imprinting: Separating the sheep from the goats. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14:1999;131-132.
43. Pomiankowski A. The costs of choice in sexual selection. J. Theor. Biol. 128:1987;195-218.
44. Pomiankowski A., Iwasa Y., Nee S. The evolution of costly mate preferences. I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution. 45:1991;1422-1430.
45. Pomiankowski A., Møller A. P. A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. London B. 260:1995;21-29.
46. Richerson P. J., Boyd R. The role of evolved predispositions in cultural evolution. Ethol. Sociobiol. 10:1989;195-219.
47. Schlupp I., Marler C., Ryan M. J. Benefit to male sailfin mollies of mating with heterospecific females. Science. 263:1994;373-374.
48. Searcy W. A., Andersson M. Sexual selection and the evolution of song. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17:1986;507-533.
49. Seger J. Unifying genetic models for the evolution of female choice. Evolution. 39:1985;1185-1193.
50. Seiger M. B. A computer simulation study of the influence of imprinting on population structure. Am. Nat. 101:1967;47-57.
51. Spitler-Nabors K. J., Baker M. C. Sexual display response of female white-crowned sparrows to normal, isolate and modified conspecific songs. Anim. Behav. 35:1987;380-386.
52. ten Cate C., Bateson P. Sexual selection: The evolution of conspicuous characteristics in birds by means of imprinting. Evolution. 42:1988;1355-1358.
53. ten Cate C., Bateson P. Sexual imprinting and a preference for "supernormal" partners in Japanese quail. Anim. Behav. 38:1989;356-358.
54. Weatherhead P. J., Robertson R. J. Offspring quality and the polygyny threshold: "The sexy son hypothesis" Am. Nat. 113:1979;201-208.
55. White D. J., Galef B. G. Mate choice copying and conspecific cueing in Japanese quail, Coturnix coturnix japonica. Anim. Behav. 57:1999;465-473.
56. Whiten A., Ham R. On the nature and evolution of imitation in the animal kingdom: Reappraisal of a century of research. Rosenblatt J. S., Hinde R. A., Shaw E., Beer C. Advances in the Study of Behavior. 1992;239-283 Academic Press, New York.