Male dwarf chameleons assess risk of courting large, aggressive females

Biology Letters

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 231-234

  Stuart Fox, Devi M ^a   Whiting, Martin J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRAND   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Antagonistic coevolution; Female rejection; Mating costs; Sexual conflict

Indexed keywords

AGGRESSION; COPULATION; REPRODUCTIVE COST; REPTILE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEXUAL CONFLICT;

AGGRESSION; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; COITUS; CONTROLLED STUDY; COURTSHIP; FEMALE; LIZARD; MALE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

BRADYPODION PUMILUM; CHAMAELEONIDAE;

EID: 25444526689     PISSN: 17449561     EISSN: 1744957X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2005.0299     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Arnqvist, G. & Henriksson, S. 1997 Sexual cannibalism in the fishing spider and a model for the evolution of sexual cannibalism based on genetic constraints. Evol. Ecol. 11, 255-273.
2. Arnqvist, G. & Rowe, L. 2002 Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415, 787-789.
3. Burrage, B. R. 1973 Comparative ecology and behaviour of Chamaeleo pumilis pumilis (Gemelin) and C. namaguensis A. Smith (Sauria: Chamaeleonidae). Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 61, 1-158.
4. Cuadrado, M. 2000 Body colors indicate the reproductive status of female common chameleons: experimental evidence for the intersex communication function. Ethology 106, 79-91.
5. Gavrilets, S. 2000 Rapid evolution of reproductive barriers driven by sexual conflict. Nature 403, 886-889.
6. Gavrilets, S., Arnqvist, G. & Friberg, U. 2001 The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc. R. Soc. B 268, 531-539. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1382)
7. Holland, B. S. & Rice, W. R. 1998 Perspective: chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction vs. resistance. Evolution 52, 1-7.
8. Littell, R. C., Henry, P. R. & Ammerman, C. B. 1998 Statistical analysis of repeated measures using SAS procedures. J. Anim. Sci. 76, 1216-1231.
9. Muhlhauser, C. & Blanckenhorn, W. U. 2002 The costs of avoiding matings in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behav. Ecol. 13, 359-365.
10. Parker, G. A. 1979 Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects (ed. M. S. Blum & N. A. Blum), pp. 123-166. New York: Academic Press.
11. Parker, G. A. & Partridge, L. 1998 Sexual conflict and speciation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 353, 261-274. (doi:10.1098/rstb.l998.0208)
12. Pilastro, A., Benetton, S. & Bisazza, A. 2003 Female aggregation and male competition reduce costs of sexual harassment in the mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki. Anim. Behav. 65, 1161-1167.
13. Shine, R., O'Connor, D., Lemaster, M. P. & Mason, R. T. 2001 Pick on someone your own size: ontogenetic shifts in mate choice by male garter snakes result in size-assortative mating. Anim. Behav. 61, 1133-1141.
14. Shine, R., Langkilde, T. & Mason, R. T. 2003 Cryptic forcible insemination: male snakes exploit female physiology, anatomy and behavior to obtain coercive matings. Am. Nat. 162, 653-667.
15. Shine, R., Phillips, B., Langkilde, T., Lutterschmidt, D. I., Waye, H. & Mason, R. T. 2004 Mehcanisms and consequences of sexual conflict in garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis, Colubridae). Behav. Ecol. 16, 654-660.
16. Stutt, A. D. & Siva-Jothy, M. T. 2001 Traumatic insemination and sexual conflict in the bed bug Cimex lectularius. Proc. NatlAcad. Sci. USA 98, 5683-5687.
17. Watson, P. J., Arnqvist, G. & Stallmann, R. R. 1998 Sexual conflict and the energetic costs of mating and mate choice in water striders. Am. Nat. 151, 46-58.
18. Werner, N. Y. & Lotem, A. 2003 Choosy males in a haplochromine cichlid: first experimental evidence for male mate choice in a lekking species. Anim. Behav. 66, 293-298.
19. Wong, B. B. M. & Jennions, M. D. 2003 Costs influence male mate choice in a freshwater fish. Proc. R. Soc. B 270(Suppl. 1), S36-S38. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2003.0003)
20. Wong, B. B. M., Jennions, M. D. & Keogh, J. S. 2004 Sequential male mate choice in a fish, the Pacific blue-eye Pseudomugil siginifer. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 56, 253-256.