Generalization in response to mate recognition signals

American Naturalist

Volumn 161, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 380-394

  Ryan, Michael J ^a,b   Rand, William ^c   Hurd, Peter L ^d   Phelps, Steve M ^e   Rand, A Stanley ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b SMITHSONIAN TROPICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Panama)

^c TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^e EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Generalization gradients; Mate recognition; Preference functions; Sexual selection; Species recognition; T ngara frogs

Indexed keywords

FROG; MATE RECOGNITION; SEXUAL SELECTION; VOCALIZATION;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; FEMALE; FROGS AND TOADS; HEARING; MALE; MOTOR ACTIVITY; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; VOCALIZATION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ANIMALS; ANURA; FEMALE; HEARING; MALE; MOTOR ACTIVITY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; VOCALIZATION, ANIMAL;

AMPHIBIA; ANIMALIA; ANURA; PHYSALAEMUS; PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS; REPTILIA;

EID: 0037352068     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/367588     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
2. Backwell, P. R. Y., and M. D. Jennions. 1993. Mate choice in the Neotropical frog, Hyla ebraccata: sexual selection, mate recognition and signal selection. Animal Behaviour 45:1248-1250.
3. Barlow, G. W. 1977. Modal action patterns. Pages 98-134 in T. A. Sebeok, ed. How animals communicate. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
4. Blair, W. F. 1964. Isolating mechanisms and interspecies interactions in anuran amphibians. Quarterly Review of Biology 39:334-344.
5. Cannatella, D. C., and W. E. Duellman. 1984. Leptodactylid frogs of the Physalaemus pustulosus group. Copeia 1984:902-921.
6. Cannatella, D. C., D. M. Hillis, P. Chippinendale, L. Weigt, A. S. Rand, and M. J. Ryan. 1998. Phylogeny of frogs of the Physalaemus pustulosus species group, with an examination of data incongruence. Systematic Biology 47:311-335.
7. Coyne, J. A., and H. A. Orr. 1989. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution 43:362-381.
8. _. 1997. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila revisited. Evolution 51:295-303.
9. Dobzhansky, T. 1940. Speciation as a stage in evolutionary divergence. American Naturalist 74:312-332.
10. Ehret, G. 1987. Categorical perception of sound signals: facts and hypotheses from animal studies. Pages 301-331 in S. Harnad, ed. Categorical perception. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
11. Enquist, M., and A. Arak. 1998. Neural representation and the evolution of signal form. Pages 21-87 in R. Dukas, ed. Cognitive ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
12. Gerhardt, H. C. 1974. Behavioral isolation of the tree frogs, Hyla cinerea and Hyla andersonii. American Midland Naturalist 91:424-433.
13. _. 1978. Discrimination of intermediate sounds in a synthetic call continuum by female green tree frogs. Science (Washington, D.C.) 199:1089-1091.
14. _. 1982. Sound pattern recognition in some North American treefrogs: implications for mate choice. American Zoologist 22:581-595.
15. _. 2001. Acoustic communication in two groups of closely related treefrogs. Advances in the Study of Behavior 30:99-167.
16. Gerhardt, H. C., and F. Huber. 2002. Acoustic communication in insects and anurans. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
17. Gerhardt, H. C., M. Dyson, S. Tanner, and C. Murphy. 1994. Female treefrogs do not avoid heterospecific calls as they approach conspecific calls. Animal Behaviour 47:1323-1332.
18. Gerhardt, H. C., S. D. Tanner, C. M. Corrigan, and H. C. Walton. 2000. Female preference functions based on call duration in the gray tree frog (Hyla versicolor). Behavioral Ecology 11:663-669.
19. Giacomo, C., and S. Castellano. 2001. Advertisement call variation and speciation in the Bufo viridis complex. Pages 205-219 in M. J. Ryan, ed. Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
20. Grafe, T. U., S. Döbler, and K. E. Linsenmair. 2002. Frogs flee from the sound of fire. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, Biological Sciences 269:999-1003.
21. Gwynne, D. T., and G. K. Morris. 1986. Heterospecific recognition and behavioral isolation in acoustic orthoptera (Insecta). Evolutionary Theory 8:33-38.
22. Harnad, S., ed. 1987. Categorical perception. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
23. Heth, G. J., N. Todrank, C. Busquet, and C. Baudoin. 2001. Odour-genes covariance and differential investigation of individual odours in the Mus species complex. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 73:213-220.
24. Ihaka, R., and R. Gentleman. 1996. R: a language for data analysis and graphics. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 5:299-314.
25. Irwin, D. E.,P. Alström, U. Olsson, and Z. M. Benowtitz-Fredericks. 2001. Cryptic species in the genus Phylloscopus (Old World leaf warblers). Ibis 143:233-247.
26. Kaneshiro, K. Y. 1983. Sexual selection and the direction of evolution in the biosystematics of Hawaiian Drosophillidae. Annual Review of Entomology 28:161-178.
27. Kime, N. M., A. S. Rand, M. Kapfer, and M. J. Ryan. 1998. Repeatability of female choice in the túngara frog: a permissive preference for complex characters. Animal Behaviour 55:641-649.
28. Kluender, K. R., R. L. Diehl, and P. R. Killeen. 1987. Japanese quail can learn phonetic categories. Science (Washington, D.C.) 237:1195-1197.
29. Kruskal, J. B., and M. Wish. 1978. Multidimensional scaling. Sage, London.
30. Kuhl, P. K., and J. D. Miller. 1975. Speech perception by the chinchilla: voiced-voiceless distinction in alveolar plosive consonants. Science (Washington, D.C.) 190:69-72.
31. Marler, P., and D. A. Nelson. 1989. Categorical perception of a natural stimulus continuum: birdsong. Science (Washington, D.C.) 244:976-978.
32. Márquez, R., and J. Bosch. 2001. Communication and mating in the midwife toads (Alytes obstetricans and Alytes cisternasii). Pages 220-231 in M. J. Ryan, ed. Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
33. Mayr, E. 1963. Animal species and evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
34. McLennan, D. A., and M. J. Ryan. 1997. Responses to conspecific and heterospecific olfactory cues in the swordtail Xiphophorus cortezi. Animal Behaviour 54:1077-1088.
35. _. 1999. Interspecific recognition and discrimination based upon olfactory cues in swordtails. Evolution 53:880-888.
36. Munclinger, P., and D. Frynta. 1997. Relations between distant populations of Mus musculus sensu lato: is there any odour-based discrimination? Folia Zoologica 46:193-199.
37. Murphy, C. G., and H. C. Gerhardt. 2000. Mating preference functions of individual female barking treefrogs, Hyla gratiosa, for two properties of male advertisement calls. Evolution 54:660-669.
38. Nevo, E., and R. R. Capranica. 1985. Evolutionary origin of ethological reproductive isolation in cricket frogs. Evolutionary Biology 19:147-214.
39. Paterson, H. E. H. 1985. The recognition concept of species. Pages 21-29 in E. Vrba, ed. Species and speciation. Transvaal Museum Monograph 4, Pretoria.
40. Phelps, S. M., and M. J. Ryan. 1998. Neural networks predict response biases in female túngara frogs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, Biological Sciences 265:279-285.
41. _. 2000. History influences signal recognition: neural network models of túngara frogs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, Biological Sciences 267:1633-1639.
42. Phelps, S. M., M. J. Ryan, and A. S. Rand. 2001. Vestigial preference functions in neural networks and túngara frogs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 98:13161-13166.
43. Pinto, J. D. 1980. Behavior and taxonomy of the Epicauta maculata group (Coleoprera: Meloidae). University of California Publications in Entomology 89:1-111.
44. Podos, J. 2001. Correlated evolution of morphology and vocal signal structure in Darwin's finches. Nature 409:185-188.
45. Ptacek, M. 2000. The role of mating preferences in shaping interspecific divergence in mating signals in vertebrates. Behavioural Processes 51:111-134.
46. Rand, A. S., M. J. Ryan, and W. Wilczynski. 1992. Signal redundancy and receiver permissiveness in acoustic mate recognition by the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. American Zoologist 32:81-90.
47. Rice, W. R., and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Perspective: laboratory experiments on speciation: what have we learned in forty years? Evolution 47:1637-1653.
48. Ritchie, M. G. 1996. The shape of female mating preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 93:14628-14631.
49. Ryan, M. J. 1980. Female mate choice in a Neotropical frog. Science (Washington, D.C.) 209:523-525.
50. _. 1990. Sensory systems, sexual selection, and sensory exploitation. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 7:157-195.
51. Ryan, M. J., and A. S. Rand. 1993a. Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of biases past. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, Biological Sciences 340:187-195.
52. _. 1993b. Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47:647-657.
53. _. 1995. Female responses to ancestral advertisement calls in the túngara frog. Science (Washington, D.C.) 269:390-392.
54. _. 1999. Phylogenetic inference and the evolution of communication in túngara frogs. Pages 535-557 in M. D. Hauser and M. Konishi, eds. The design of animal communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
55. _. 2001. Feature weighting in signal recognition and discrimination by the túngara frog. Pages 86-101 in M. J. Ryan, ed. Anuran communication. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
56. Ryan, M. J., and W. Wagner, Jr. 1987. Asymmetries in mating preferences between species: female swordtails prefer heterospecific mates. Science (Washington, D.C.) 236:595-597.
57. Ryan, M. J., and W. Wilczynski. 1988. Coevolution of sender and receiver: effect on local mate preference in cricket frogs. Science (Washington, D.C.) 240:1786-1788.
58. Ryan, M. J., A. S. Rand, and L. Weigt. 1996. Allozyme and advertisement call variation in the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. Evolution 50:2435-2453.
59. Ryan, M. J., S. M. Phelps, and A. S. Rand. 2001. How evolutionary history shapes recognition mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5:143-148.
60. Saetre, G.-P., M. Kral, and S. Bures. 1997. Differential species recognition abilities of males and females in a flycatcher hybrid zone. Journal of Avian Biology. 28:259-263.
61. Shepard, R. N. 1987. Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. Science (Washington, D.C.) 237:1317-1323.
62. Staddon, J. E. R. 1975. A note on the evolutionary significance of "supernormal" stimuli. American Naturalist 109:541-545.
63. Wagner, W. E., Jr. 1998. Measuring female mating preferences. Animal Behaviour 55:1029-1042.
64. Welch, A. M., R. D. Semlitsch, and H. C. Gerhardt. 1998. Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science (Washington, D.C.) 280:1928-1930.
65. Wilkinson, L. 2000. SYSTAT. Version 10. SPSS, Chicago.
66. Williams, G. C. 1966. Adaptation and natural selection: a critique of some current evolutionary thought. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
67. Wollerman, L. 1998. Stabilizing and directional preferences of female Hyla ebraccata for calls differing in static properties. Animal Behaviour 55:1619-1630.
68. Wyttenbach, R. A., and R. R. Hoy. 1999. Categorical perception of behaviorally relevant stimuli by crickets. Pages 559-576 in M. D. Hauser, and M. Konishi, eds. The design of animal communication. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.