Sensory Exploitation: Underestimated in the Evolution of Art As Once in Sexual Selection Theory?

Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science

Volumn 282, Issue , 2012, Pages 189-216

  Verpooten, Jan ^a,b   Nelissen, Mark ^b  

^a KONRAD LORENZ INSTITUTE FOR EVOLUTION AND COGNITION RESEARCH   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Iconic Representation; Orange Spot; Sensory Bias; Sensory Exploitation; Sexual Selection

Indexed keywords

EID: 85012857877     PISSN: 00680346     EISSN: 22147942     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-1951-4_9     Document Type: Chapter

References (95)

1. Adajian, T. (2007): The Definition of Art. In: E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/art-definition/
2. Andersson, M. (1994): Sexual Selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
3. Arak, A., and Enquist, M. (1993): Hidden preferences and the evolution of signals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 340: 207–213.
4. Arak, A., and Enquist, M. (1995): Conflict, receiver bias and the evolution of signal form. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 349: 337–344.
5. Arnqvist, G. (2006): Sensory exploitation and sexual conflict. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 361: 375–386.
6. Atran, S. (2002): In Gods we Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press.
7. Autumn, K., Ryan, M.J., and Wake, D.B. (2002): Integrating historical and mechanistic biology enhances the study of adaptation. Quarterly Review of Biology 77: 383–408.
8. Basolo, A.L. (1990): Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordfish. Science 250: 808–810.
9. Borgia, G. (1995): Complex male display and female choice in the spotted bowerbird: Specialized functions for different bower decorations. Animal Behavior 49: 1291–1301.
10. Boyd, R. and Richerson, P.J. (1985): Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11. Boyd, R. and Richerson, P.J. (2005): The Origin and Evolution of Cultures. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12. Burley, N. (1988): Wild zebra finches have band-color preferences. Animal Behavior 36: 1235–1237.
13. Christy, J.H. (1995): Mimicry, mate choice, and the sensory trap hypothesis. American Naturalist 146: 171–181.
14. Coe, K. (2003): The Ancestress Hypothesis: Visual Art as Adaptation. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
15. Culotta, E. (2009): On the origin of religion. Science 326: 784–787.
16. Darwin, C. (1871): The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2 vols. London: John Murray.
17. Dawkins, M.S. and Guilford, T. (1996): Sensory bias and the adaptiveness of female choice. American Naturalist 148: 937–942.
18. Dawkins, R. (1982): The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection . Oxford: W. H. Freeman.
19. Dawkins, R. (2006): The God Delusion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
20. Dissanayake, E. (1992): Homo Aestheticus: Where Art Comes From and Why. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
21. Dissanayake, E. (2001): Birth of the arts. Natural History 109: 84–91.
22. Driscoll, C. (2006): The bowerbirds and the bees: Miller on art, altruism, and sexual selection. Philosophical Psychology 19: 507–526.
23. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989a): Human Ethology. Translated by Pauline Wiessner-Larsen and Annette Heunemann. New York: Aldine Degruyter.
24. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989b): The biological foundations of aesthetics. In: I. Rentschler, B. Hertzberger and D. Epstein (Eds.) Beauty and the brain: Biological Aspects of Aesthetics (pp. 29–68). Basel: Birkhauser.
25. Endler, J.A. (1992): Signals, signal conditions, and the direction of evolution. American Naturalist 139: 125–153.
26. Endler, J.A., and Basolo, A.L. (1998): Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 415–420.
27. Enquist, M., and Arak, A. (1993): Selection of exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic senses. Nature 361: 446–448.
28. Enquist, M., and Arak, A. (1994): Symmetry, beauty and evolution. Nature 372: 169–172.
29. Eshel, I., Volovik, I., and Sansone, E. (2000): On Fisher-Zahavi’s handicapped sexy son. Evolutionary Ecology Research 2: 509–523.
30. Fisher, R.A. (1930): The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
31. Fitch, W.T. (2006): The biology and evolution of music: a comparative perspective. Cognition 100: 173–215.
32. Flinn, M.V., and Alexander, R.D. (1982): Culture theory: The developing synthesis from biology. Human Ecology 10: 383–400.
33. Fuller R.C., Houle D., and Travis J. (2005): Sensory Bias as an Explanation for the Evolution of Mate Preferences. American Naturalist 166: 437–446.
34. Gaut, B. (2005): The Cluster Account of Art Defended. British Journal of Aesthetics 45: 273–288.
35. Ghirlanda, S., and Enquist, M.A. (2003): A century of generalization. Animal Behaviour 66: 15–36.
36. Gould, S.J. (1991): Exaptation: A crucial tool for evolutionary psychology. Journal of Social Issues 47: 43–65.
37. Gould, S.J., and Lewontin, R.C. (1979): The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 205: 581–598.
38. Guilford, T., and Dawkins, M.S. (1991): Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Animal Behaviour 42: 1–14.
39. Haufe, C. (2008): Sexual selection and mate choice in evolutionary psychology. Biology and Philosophy 23: 115–128.
40. Henrich, J., and McElreath, R. (2003): The evolution of cultural evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology 12: 123–135.
41. Henrich, J. (2004): Demography and Cultural Evolution: How Adaptive Cultural Processes can Produce Maladaptive Losses: The Tasmanian Case. American Antiquity 69: 197–214.
42. Hodgson, D. (2006): Understanding the origins of Paleoart: The neurovisual resonance theory and brain functioning. PaleoAnthropology 2006: 54–67.
43. Jersakova, J., Johnson, S. D., and Kindlmann, P. (2006): Mechanisms and evolution of deceptive pollination in orchids. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 81: 219–235.
44. Johnstone, R. A. (1994): Female preference for symmetrical males as a byproduct of selection for mate recognition. Nature 372: 172–175.
45. Kellert, S.R., and Wilson, E.O. (1993): The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington: Island Press.
46. Kirkpatrick, M. and Ryan, M.J. (1991): The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350: 33–38.
47. Kohn, M., and Mithen S. (1999): Handaxes: Products of sexual selection? Antiquity 73: 518–26.
48. Kokko, H., Brooks, R., Jennions, M.D., and Morley, J. (2003): The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 270: 653–664.
49. Lande, R. (1981): Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 78: 3721–3725.
50. Low, B.S. (1979): Sexual selection and human ornamentation. In: N. A. Chagnon and W. Irons (Eds.) Evolutionary biology and human social behavior (pp. 462–487). Boston: Duxbury Press.
51. Maran, T. (2007): Semiotic interpretations of biological mimicry. Semiotica 167–1/4: 223–248.
52. McElreath, R., and Henrich, J. (2007): Dual inheritance theory: the evolution of human cultural capacities and cultural evolution. In: R. Dunbar and L. Barrett (Eds.) Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53. McDermott, L. (1996): Self-representation in upper paleolithic female figurines. Current Anthropology 37: 227–275
54. Miller, G.F. (1998): How mate choice shaped human nature: A review of sexual selection and human evolution. In: C. Crawford and D. Krebs (Eds.) Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications (pp. 87–129). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
55. Miller, G.F. (1999): Sexual selection for cultural displays. In: R. Dunbar, C. Knight, and C. Power (Eds.) The evolution of culture (pp. 71–91). Edinburgh University Press,.
56. Miller, G.F. (2000): The Mating Mind. London: Heinemann.
57. Miller, G.F. (2001): Aesthetic fitness: How sexual selection shaped artistic virtuosity as a fitness indicator and aesthetic preferences as mate choice criteria. Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts 2: 20–25.
58. Pasteur, G. (1982): A classificatory review of mimicry systems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 13: 169–199.
59. Payne, R.J.H. and Pagel, M. (2000): Inferring the origins of state-dependent courtship traits. American Naturalist 157: 42–50.
60. Pinker, S. (1997): How the mind works. New York: Norton.
61. Pinker, S. (2002): The blank slate. The modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking.
62. Ramachandran, V.S., and Hirstein, W. (1999): The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies 6: 15–51.
63. Reeve, H.K. and Sherman, P. (1993): Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research. Quarterly Review of Biology 68: 1–32.
64. Ribeiro, P.D., Christy J.H., Rissanen R.J. and Kim T.W. (2006): Males are attracted by their own courtship signals. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 61: 81–89.
65. Richerson, P:J. and Boyd, R. (2001): Built for Speed, Not for Comfort: Darwinian Theory and Human Culture. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 23: 425–465.
66. Ridley, M. (1981): How the peacock got his tail. New Scientist 91: 398–401.
67. Rodd, F.H., Hughes, K.A., Grether, G.F., and Baril, C.T. (2002): A possible non-sexual origin of a mate preference: are male guppies mimicking fruit? Proceedings of the Royal Society B 269: 475–481.
68. Rodriguez, R.L. and Snedden, W. (2004): On the functional design of mate preferences and receiver biases. Animal Behaviour 68: 427–432.
69. Ryan, M.J. (1990): Sexual selection, sensory systems and sensory exploitation. Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 7: 157–195.
70. Ryan, M.J. (1995): Female responses to ancestral advertisement calls in tungara frogs. Science 269: 390–392.
71. Ryan, M.J. (1998, review 1999): Sexual Selection, Receiver Biases, and the Evolution of Sex Differences. Science 281: 1999–2003.
72. Ryan, M.J., and Keddy-Hector, A. (1992): Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. American Naturalist Supplement 139: 4–35.
73. Ryan, M.J., and Rand, A.S. (1990): The sensory basis of sexual selection for complex calls in the tungara frog, Physalaemus pustulosus (sexual selection for sensory exploitation). Evolution 44: 305–314.
74. Ryan, M.J., and Rand, A.S. (1993): Sexual selection and signal evolution: the ghost of biases past. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 340: 187–195.
75. Schiestl, F.P., and Cozzolino, S. (2008): Evolution of sexual mimicry in the orchid subtribe orchidinae: the role of preadaptations in the attraction of male bees as pollinators. BMC Evolutionary Biology 8: 27.
76. Sebeok, T.A. (1989): Iconicity. In: T.A. Sebeok (Ed.) The Sign and Its Masters (pp 107–127). Lanham: University Press of America.
77. Sebeok, T.A., and Danesi, M. (2000): The Forms of Meaning: Modeling Systems Theory and Semiotic Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
78. Sergent, J., Ohta, S., and MacDonald, B. (1992): Functional neuroanatomy of face and object processing. A positron emission tomography study. Brain 115: 15–3.
79. Shaw, K.L. (1995): Phylogenetic tests of the sensory exploitation model of sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 117–120.
80. Shennan, S. (2001): Demography and cultural innovation: a model and its implication for the emergence of modern human culture. Cambridge Archeological Journal 11: 5–16.
81. Sober, E. (1984): The Nature of Selection. Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
82. Tobler, M. (2006): Die Eiflecken bei Cichliden: Evolution durch Nutzung der Sinne? (The eggspots of cichlids: Evolution through sensory exploitation?). Zeitschrift für Fischkunde 8: 39–46.
83. Tsao, D.Y. and Livingstone, M.S. (2008): Mechanisms of face perception. Annual Review of Neurosciences 31: 411–437.
84. Ulrich, R.S. (1993): Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In: R.S. Kellert, E.O. Wilson (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis (pp. 73–137). Washington: Island Press.
85. Van Damme, W. (2008): Introducing world art studies. In: W. Van Damme and K. Zijlmans (Eds.) World Art Studies: Exploring Concepts and Approaches. Amsterdam: Valiz.
86. Verpooten, J. and Nelissen, M. (2010): Sensory exploitation and cultural transmission: the late emergence of iconic representations in human evolution. Theory in Biosciences 129: 211–221.
87. West-Eberhard, M.J. (1992): Adaptation: current usages. In: E.F. Keller and E.A. Lloyd (Eds.) Keywords in Evolutionary Biology (pp. 13–18). Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
88. West-Eberhard, M.J. (1984): Sexual selection, competitive communication, and species-specific signals in insects. In: T. Lewis (Ed.) Insect Communication (pp. 283–324). London: Academic Press.
89. Wickler, W. (1962): “Egg-dummies” as natural releasers in mouth-breeding cichlids. Nature 194: 1092–1093.
90. Williams, G.C. (1966): Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
91. Wilson, E.O. (1984): Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
92. Wilson, D.S. (2002): Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
93. Zahavi, A. (1975): Mate selection: A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology 53: 205–214.
94. Zahavi, A. (1991): On the definition of sexual selection, Fisher’s model, and the evolution of waste and of signals in general. Animal Behaviour 42: 501–503.
95. Zahavi, A., and Zahavi, A. (1997): The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin’s Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.