On the functional design of mate preferences and receiver biases

Animal Behaviour

Volumn 68, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 427-432

  Rodríguez, Rafael L ^a,b   Andrew Snedden, W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DESIGN; MATE ATTRACTION;

EID: 3242705998     PISSN: 00033472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.08.031     Document Type: Note

References (75)

1. Andersson M. Sexual Selection. 1994;Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
2. Arak A., Enquist M. Hidden preferences and the evolution of signals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 340:1993;207-213
3. Arak A., Enquist M. Conflict, receiver bias and the evolution of signal form. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 349:1995;337-344
4. Autumn K., Ryan M.J., Wake D.B. Integrating historical and mechanistic biology enhances the study of adaptation. Quarterly Review of Biology. 77:2002;383-408
5. Basolo A.L. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science. 250:1990;808-810
6. Basolo A.L. A further examination of a pre-existing bias favouring a sword in the genus Xiphophorus. Animal Behaviour. 50:1995;365-375
7. Basolo A.L. Phylogenetic evidence for the role of a pre-existing bias in sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 259:1995;307-311
8. Basolo A.L. Evolutionary change in a receiver bias: a comparison of female preference functions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 265:1998;2223-2228
9. Basolo A.L. Congruence between the sexes in preexisting receiver responses. Behavioral Ecology. 13:2002;832-837
10. Basolo A.L., Trainor B.C. The conformation of a female preference for a composite male trait in green swordtails. Animal Behaviour. 63:2002;469-474
11. Bieri J., Kawecki T.J. Genetic architecture of differences between populations of cowpea weevil (Callosobruchus maculatus) evolved in the same environment. Evolution. 57:2003;274-287
12. Bradbury J.W., Vehrencamp S.L. Principles of Animal Communication. 1998;Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts
13. Bradbury J.W., Vehrencamp S.L. Economic models of animal communication. Animal Behaviour. 59:2000;259-268
14. Burley N. Comparison of the band-colour preferences of two species of estrildid finches. Animal Behaviour. 34:1986;1732-1741
15. Burley N. Wild zebra finches have band-colour preferences. Animal Behaviour. 36:1988;1235-1237
16. Burley N., Symanski R. 'A taste for the beautiful': latent aesthetic mate preferences for white crests in two species of Australian grassfinches. American Naturalist. 152:1998;792-802
17. Burley N., Krantzberg G., Radman P. Influence of colour-banding on the conspecific preferences of zebra finches. Animal Behaviour. 30:1982;444-455
18. Christy J.H. Mimicry, mate choice, and the sensory trap hypothesis. American Naturalist. 146:1995;171-181
19. Christy J.H., Blackwell P.R.Y., Goshima S., Kreuter T. Sexual selection for structure building by courting male fiddler crabs: an experimental study of behavioral mechanisms. Behavioral Ecology. 13:2002;366-374
20. Christy J.H., Baum J.K., Blackwell P.R.Y. Attractiveness of sand hoods built by courting male fiddler crabs, Uca musica: test of a sensory trap hypothesis. Animal Behaviour. 66:2003;89-94
21. Christy J.H., Blackwell P.R.Y., Schober U. Interspecific attractiveness of structures built by courting male fiddler crabs: experimental evidence of a sensory trap. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 53:2003;84-91
22. Collins S.A. Is female preference for male repertoires due to sensory bias? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 266:1999;2309-2314
23. Conner W.E. 'Un chant d'appel amoureux': acoustic communication in moths. Journal of Experimental Biology. 202:1999;1711-1723
24. Córdoba-Aguilar A. Sensory trap as the mechanism of sexual selection in a damselfly genitalic trait (Insecta: Calopterygidae). American Naturalist. 160:2002;594-601
25. Cunningham C.W., Omland K.E., Oakley T.H. Reconstructing ancestral character states: a critical reappraisal. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 13:1998;361-366
26. Darwin C. On the Origin of Species. [A facsimile of the first edition 1998.]:1859;Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
27. Dawkins M.S., Guilford T. Sensory bias and the adaptiveness of female choice. American Naturalist. 148:1996;937-942
28. Eberhard W.G. Female Control: Sexual Selection and Cryptic Female Choice. 1996;Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
29. Endler J.A., Basolo A.L. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 13:1998;415-420
30. Fisher R. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. 1958;Oxford University Press, New York
31. Grether G.F. Carotenoid limitation and mate preference evolution: a test of the indicator hypothesis in guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Evolution. 54:2000;1712-1724
32. Grether G.F., Millie D.F., Bryant M.J., Reznick D.N., Mayea W. Rain forest canopy cover, resource availability, and life history evolution in guppies. Ecology. 82:2001;1546-1559
33. Harvey P.H., Pagel M.D. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. 1991;Oxford University Press, Oxford
34. von Helversen D., von Helversen O. Pre-mating sperm removal in the bushcricket Metaplastes ornatus Ramme 1931 (Orthoptera, Tettigonoidea, Phaneropteridae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 28:1991;391-396
35. Iyengar V., Eisner T. Heritability of body mass, a sexually selected trait, in an arctiid moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 96:1999;9169-9171
36. Kirkpatrick M., Ryan M.J. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature. 350:1991;33-38
37. Kokko H., Brooks R., Jennions M.D., Morley J. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 270:2003;653-664
38. McClintock W.J., Uetz G.W. Female choice and pre-existing bias: visual cues during courtship in two Schizocosa wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae). Animal Behaviour. 52:1996;167-181
39. Madden J.R., Tanner K. Preferences for coloured bower decorations can be explained in a nonsexual context. Animal Behaviour. 65:2003;1077-1083
40. Martins E.P. Adaptation and the comparative method. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 15:2000;296-299
41. Martins E.P., Diriz-Filho J.A., Housworth E.A. Adaptive constraints and the phylogenetic method: a computer simulation. Evolution. 56:2002;1-13
42. Møller A.P., Alatalo R.V. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 266:1999;85-91
43. Payne R.J.H., Pagel M. Inferring the origins of state-dependent courtship traits. American Naturalist. 157:2001;42-50
44. Proctor H.C. Courtship in the water mite Neumania papillator: males capitalize on female adaptations for predation. Animal Behaviour. 42:1991;589-598
45. Proctor H.C. Sensory exploitation and the evolution of male mating behavior: a cladistic test using water mites (Acari: Parasitengona). Animal Behaviour. 44:1992;745-752
46. Reeve K.R., Sherman P.W. Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. Quarterly Review of Biology. 68:1993;1-32
47. Reeve K.R., Sherman P.W. Optimality and phylogeny. Orzack S.H., Sober E. Adaptanionism and Optimality. 2001;64-113 Cambridge University Press, New York
48. Ritchie M.G. The shape of female mating preferences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 93:1996;14628-14631
49. Rodd F.H., Hughes K.A., Grether G.F., Baril C.T. A possible non-sexual origin of mate preference: are male guppies mimicking fruit? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 269:2002;475-481
50. Roff D.A. Evolutionary Quantitative Analysis. 1997;Chapman & Hall, New York
51. Rosenthal G.G., Evans C.S. Female preference for swords in Xiphophorus helleri reflects a bias for large apparent size. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 95:1998;4431-4436
52. Ryan M.J. The Túngara Frog, a Study in Sexual Selection and Communication. 1985;University of Chicago Press, Chicago
53. Ryan M.J. Sexual selection, sensory systems and sensory exploitation. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology. 7:1990;157-195
54. Ryan M.J. Female responses to ancestral advertisement calls in túngara frogs. Science. 269:1995;390-392
55. Ryan M.J. Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science. 281:1998;1999-2002
56. Ryan M.J., Keddy-Hector A. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. American Naturalist, Supplement. 139:1992;4-35
57. Ryan M.J., Rand A.S. The sensory basis of sexual selection for complex calls in the túngara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus (sexual selection for sensory exploitation). Evolution. 44:1990;305-314
58. Ryan M.J., Rand A.S. Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of biases past. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 340:1993;187-195
59. Sakaluk S.K. Sensory exploitation as an evolutionary origin to nuptial food gifts in insects. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 267:2000;339-343
60. Schultz T.R., Churchill G.A. The role of subjectivity in reconstructing ancestral character states: a Bayesian approach to unknown rates, states, and transformation asymmetries. Systematic Biology. 48:1999;651-664
61. Schultz T.R., Cocroft R.B., Churchill G.A. The reconstruction of ancestral character states. Evolution. 50:1996;504-511
62. Searcy W.A. Song repertoire and mate choice in birds. American Zoologist. 32:1992;71-80
63. Shaw K.L. Phylogenetic tests of the sensory exploitation model of sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 10:1995;117-120
64. Sih A., Kats L.B., Maurer E.F. Behavioural correlations across situations and the evolution of antipredator behaviour in a sunfish-salamander system. Animal Behaviour. 65:2003;29-44
65. Sinervo B., Basolo A.L. Testing adaptation using phenotypic manipulations. Rose M.R., Lauder G.V. Adaptation. 1996;149-185 Academic Press, San Diego, California
66. Sober E. The Nature of Selection. Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. 1984;MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
67. Stålhandske P. Nuptial gifts of male spiders function as sensory traps. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B. 269:2002;905-908
68. Wagner W.E. Jr. Measuring female mating preferences. Animal Behaviour. 55:1998;1029-1042
69. Weller S.J., Jacobson N.L., Conner W.E. The evolution of chemical defenses and mating systems in tiger moths (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 68:1999;557-578
70. West-Eberhard M.J. Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Quarterly Review of Biology. 58:1983;155-183
71. West-Eberhard M.J. Sexual selection, competitive communication, and species-specific signals in insects. Lewis T. Insect Communication. 1984;283-324 Academic Press, London
72. West-Eberhard M.J. Adaptation: current usages. Keller E.F., Lloyd E.A. Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. 1992;13-18 Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
73. West-Eberhard M.J. Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. 2003;Oxford University Press, New York
74. Wilczynski W., Rand A.S., Ryan M.J. Female preferences for temporal order of call components in the túngara frog: a Bayesian analysis. Animal Behaviour. 58:1999;841-851
75. Williams G.C. Adaptation and Natural Selection. 1966;Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey