Why do Calypte hummingbirds "sing" with both their tail and their syrinx? An apparent example of sexual sensory bias

American Naturalist

Volumn 175, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 27-37

  Clark, Christopher J ^a,b   Feo, Teresa J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Calypte; Hummingbird; Sexual selection; Sexual sensory bias; Sound

Indexed keywords

BIOACOUSTICS; BIRD; COURTSHIP; DISPLAY BEHAVIOR; MIMICRY; PHYLOGENETICS; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL SELECTION; SIGNAL; SONG; TAIL FEATHER;

ANNA; CALYPTE; CALYPTE ANNA; CALYPTE COSTAE; TROCHILIDAE;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIRD; CLASSIFICATION; FEATHER; FEMALE; MALE; PHYLOGENY; PHYSIOLOGY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; TAIL; VOCALIZATION;

ANIMALS; BIRDS; FEATHERS; FEMALE; MALE; PHYLOGENY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; TAIL; VOCALIZATION, ANIMAL;

EID: 77449153739     PISSN: 00030147     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/648560     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
2. Arak, A., and M. Enquist. 1993. Hidden preferences and the evolution of signals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 340:207-213.
3. Arnqvist, G. 2006. Sensory exploitation and sexual conflict. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 361:375-386.
4. Baltosser, W. H., and P. E. Scott. 1996. Costa's hummingbird: Calypte costae. The Birds of North America, ed. A. Poole and F. Gill. No. 251. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia; and American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC.
5. Baptista, L. F. 2001. The song and dance of hummingbirds. California Wild 54:14-20.
6. Baptista, L. F., and M. Matsui. 1979. The source of the dive-noise of the Anna's hummingbird. Condor 81:87-89.
7. Baptista, L. F., and K. L. Schuchmann. 1990. Song learning in the Anna hummingbird (Calypte anna). Ethology 84:15-26.
8. Bostwick, K., and K. Zyskowski. 2001. Mechanical sounds and sexual dimorphism in the crested doradito. Condor 103:861-865.
9. Brooks, R., and V. Couldridge. 1999. Multiple sexual ornaments coevolve with multiple mating preferences. American Naturalist 154: 37-45.
10. Candolin, U. 2003. The use ofmultiple cues in mate choice. Biological Reviews 78:575-595.
11. Christy, J. H. 1995. Mimicry, mate choice, and the sensory trap hypothesis. American Naturalist 146:171-181.
12. Clark, C. J. 2009b. Courtship dives of Anna's hummingbird offer insights into flight performance limits. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:3047-3052.
13. Clark, C. J., and T. J. Feo. 2008. The Anna's hummingbird chirps with its tail: a new mechanism of sonation in birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 275:955-962.
14. Endler, J. A., and A. L. Basolo. 1998. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends in Ecology amp; Evolution 13:415-420.
15. Endler, J. A., D. A. Westcott, J. R. Madden, and T. Robson. 2005. Animal visual systems and the evolution ofcolor patterns: sensory processing illuminates signal evolution. Evolution 59:1795-1818.
16. Fuller, R., D. Houle, and J. Travis. 2005. Sensory bias as an explanation for the evolution of mate preferences. American Naturalist 166:437-446.
17. Garcia, C. M., and E. Ramirez. 2005. Evidence that sensory traps can evolve into honest signals. Nature 434:501-505.
18. Grether, G. F., G. R. Kolluru, and K. Nersissian. 2004. Individual colour patches as multicomponent signals. Biological Review 79: 583-610.
19. Hebets, E. A., and D. R. Papaj. 2005. Complex signal function: developing a framework of testable hypotheses. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 57:197-214.
20. Kokko, H., M. D. Jennions, and R. Brooks. 2006. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 37:43-66.
21. McGlothlin, J. W., P. G. Parker, V. Nolan Jr., and E. D. Ketterson.2005. Correlational selection leads to genetic integration of body size and an attractive plumage trait in dark-eyed juncos. Evolution 59:658-671.
22. McGuire, J., C. C. Witt, D. L. Altshuler, and J. V. J. Remsen. 2007. Phylogenetic systematics and biogeography of hummingbirds: Bayesian and maximum likelihood analyses of partitioned data and selection of an appropriate partitioning strategy. Systematic Biology 56:837-856.
23. Mirsky, E. N. 1976. Song divergence in hummingbird and junco populations on Guadalupe Island. Condor 78:230-235.
24. Pomiankowski, A., and Y. Iwasa. 1993. Evolution of multiple sexual preferences by Fisher's runaway process of sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 253:173-181.
25. Proctor, H. C. 1991. Courtship in the water mite Neumania papillator: males capitalize on female adaptations for predation. Animal Behaviour 42:589-598.
26. Rodd, F. H., K. A. Hughes, G. F. Grether, and C. T. Baril. 2002. A possible non-sexual origin of mate preference: are male guppies mimicking fruit? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 269:475-481.
27. Ryan, M. J., and A. S. Rand. 1993. Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of biases past. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 340:187-195.
28. van Doorn, G. S., and F. J. Weissing. 2004. The evolution of female preferences for multiple indicators of quality. American Naturalist 164:173-186.
29. Wells, S., R. Bradley, and L. F. Baptista. 1978. Hybridization in Calypte hummingbirds. Auk 95:537-549.
30. Williams, B. R., and A. M. Houtman. 2008. Song of Costa's hummingbird (Calypte costae). Auk 125:663-669.
31. Yang, X.-J., F.-M. Lei, G. Wang, and A. J. Jesse. 2007. Syllable sharing and inter-individual syllable variation in Anna's hummingbirds Calypte anna songs, in San Francisco, California. Folia Zoologica 56:307-318.