Temporal order and the evolution of complex acoustic signals

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 274, Issue 1619, 2007, Pages 1789-1794

  Gerhardt, H Carl ^a   Humfeld, Sarah C ^a   Marshall, Vincent T ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Complex signals; Hidden preferences; Pre existing sensory biases; Temporal order

Indexed keywords

EVOLUTION; FROG; SIGNAL; TEMPORAL VARIATION;

AGGRESSION; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FROG; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; NOISE; NONHUMAN; OSCILLOMETRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TEMPORAL LOBE;

HYLA; HYLA CHRYSOSCELIS; HYLA VERSICOLOR;

EID: 34548452665     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0451     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Andersson, M. 1994 Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Arak, A. & Enquist, M. 1993 Hidden preferences and the evolution of signals. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 340, 207-213. (doi:10.1098/rstb. 1993.0059)
3. Arnqvist, G. 2006 Sensory exploitation and sexual conflict. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 361, 375-386. (doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1790)
4. Basolo, A. L. 1996 Phylogenetic evidence for the role of a preexisting bias in sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. B 259, 307-311. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1995.0045)
5. Bradbury, J. W. & Vehrencamp, S. L. 1998 Principles of animal communication. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
6. Bush, S. L., Gerhardt, H. C. & Schul, J. 2002 Pattern recognition and call preferences in treefrogs (Anura: Hylidae): a quantitative analysis using a no-choice paradigm. Anim. Behav. 63, 7-14. (doi:10.1006/anbe. 2001.1880)
7. Crockford, C. & Boesch, C. 2005 Call combinations in wild chimpanzees. Behaviour 142, 397-421. (doi:10.1163/ 1568539054012047)
8. Endler, J. A. & Basolo, A. L. 1998 Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 415-420. (doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01471-2)
9. Freeberg, T. D. & Lucas, J. R. 2002 Receivers respond differently to chick-a-dee calls varying in note composition in Carolina chickadees, Poecile carolinensis. Anim. Behav. 63, 837-845. (doi:10.1006/anbe.2001.1981)
10. Gentner, T. Q., Fenn, K. M., Margoliash, D. & Nusbaum, H. C. 2006 Recursive syntactic pattern learning by songbirds. Nature 440, 1204-1207. (doi:10.1038/nature04675)
11. Gerhardt, H. C. 1994 Reproductive character displacement of female mate choice in the gray treefrog, Hyla chrysoscelis. Anim. Behav. 47, 959-969. (doi:10.1006/anbe.1994.1127)
12. Gerhardt, H. C. 2001 Acoustic communication in two groups of closely related treefrogs. Adv. Study Behav. 30, 99-167. (doi:10.1016/S0065-3454(01)80006-1)
13. Gerhardt, H. C. 2005 Advertisement-call preferences in diploid-tetraploid treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis and Hyla versicolor): implications for mate choice and the evolution of communication systems. Evolution 59, 395-408. (doi:10.1554/04-471)
14. Gerhardt, H. C. & Huber, F. 2002 Acoustic communication in insects and anurans: common problems and diverse solutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15. Gerhardt, H. C. & Schul, J. 1999 A quantitative analysis of behavioral selectivity for pulse rise-time in the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor. J. Comp. Physiol. A 185, 33-40. (doi:10.1007/ s003590050363)
16. Gerhardt, H. C., Dyson, M. L. & Tanner, S. D. 1995 Dynamic properties of the advertisement calls of gray treefrogs: patterns of variability and female choice. Behav. Ecol. 7, 7-18. (doi:10.1093/beheco/7.1.7)
17. Gerhardt, H. C., Tanner, S. D., Corrigan, C. M. & Walton, H. C. 2000 Female preference functions based on call duration in the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor). Behav. Ecol. 11, 663-669. (doi:10.1093/beheco/11.6.663)
18. Guilford, T. & Dawkins, M. S. 1991 Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Anim. Behav. 42, 1-14. (doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80600-1)
19. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N. & Fitch, W. T. 2002 The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298, 1569-1579. (doi:10.1126/science.298.5598.1569)
20. Klump, G. M. & Gerhardt, H. C. 1987 Use of non-arbitrary acoustic criteria in mate choice by female gray treefrogs. Nature 350, 286-288. (doi:10.1038/326286a0)
21. Miller, C. T., Iguina, C. G. & Hauser, M. D. 2005 Processing vocal signals for recognition during anitiphonal calling in tamarins. Anim. Behav. 69, 1387-1398. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2004.08.021)
22. Ryan, M. J. & Keddy-Hector, A. 1992 Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am. Nat. 139, S4-S35. (doi:10.1086/285303)
23. Ryan, M. J. & Rand, A. S. 1993 Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of biases past. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 340, 187-195. (doi:10.1098/rstb.1993.0057)
24. Ryan, M. J. & Rand, A. S. 1999 Phylogenetic inference and the evolution of communication in túngara frogs. In The design of animal communication (eds M. D. Hauser & M. Konishi), pp. 535-557. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Soha, J. A. & Marler, P. 2000 A species-specific cue for selective song learning in the white-crowned sparrow. Anim. Behav. 60, 297-306. (doi:10.1006/anbe.2000.1499)
26. Stumpner, A. & Helversen, O. v. 1992 Recognition of the two-element song in the grasshopper Chorthippus dorsatus (Orthoptera: Gomphocerinae). J. Comp. Physiol. A 178, 227-233.
27. Wilczynski, W., Rand, A. S. & Ryan, M. J. 1999 Female preferences for temporal order of call components in the tungara frog: a Bayesian analysis. Anim. Behav. 58, 841-851. (doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1208)
28. Yost, W. A. & Nielson, D. W. 1985 Fundamentals of hearing: an introduction, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Holt Rinehardt and Winston.