The influence of female viability differences on the evolution of mate choice

Heredity

Volumn 77, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 303-312

  Tomlinson, I P M ^a,b   O'Donald, P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b IMPERIAL CANCER RESEARCH FUND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

female choice; female viability; sexual selection

Indexed keywords

FEMALE CHOICE; FEMALE FITNESS; FEMALE VIABILITY; MATE CHOICE; SEXUAL SELECTION;

EID: 85047677911     PISSN: 0018067X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/hdy.1996.144     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. ANDERSSON, M. 1986. Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution, 40, 804-816.
2. CHARLESWORTH, B. 1988. The evolution of mate choice in a fluctuating environment. J. Theor. Biol., 130, 191-204.
3. FISHER, R. A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
4. FISHER, R. A. 1958. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, 2nd edn. Dover Publications, New York.
5. HAMILTON, W. D. AND ZUK, M. 1982. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science, 218, 384-387.
6. IWASA, Y., POMIANKOWSKI, A. AND NEE, S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate prefernces. II. The 'handicap' principle. Evolution, 45, 1431-1442.
7. JOHN, J. L. 1995. Haematozoan parasites, mating systems and colorful plumages in songbirds. Oikos, 72, 395-401.
8. KIRKPATRICK, M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution, 36, 1-12.
9. LANDE, R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 78, 3721-3725.
10. LANDE, R. 1982. Rapid origin of sexual isolation and character divergence in a cline. Evolution, 36, 213-223.
11. O'DONALD, P. 1980. Genetic Models of Sexual Selection. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
12. O'DONALD, P. 1983. The Arctic Skua. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
13. O'DONALD, P. AND MAJERUS, M. E. N. 1992. Non-random mating in the two-spot ladybird, Adalia bipunctata. III. New evidence of genetic preference. Heredity, 69, 521-526.
14. POMIANKOWSKI, A. 1987a. Sexual selection: the handicap principle. Proc. R. Soc. B, 231, 123-145.
15. POMIANKOWSKI, A. 1987b. The costs of choice in sexual selection. J. Theor. Biol., 128, 195-218.
16. POMIANKOWSKI, A. AND IWASA, Y. 1993. Evolution of multiple sexual preferences by Fisher's runaway process of sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. B. 253, 173-181.
17. POMIANKOWSKI, A., IWASA, Y. AND NEE, S. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. I. Fisher and the biased mutation. Evolution, 45, 1422-1430.
18. READ, A. F. 1987. Comparative evidence supports the Hamilton and Zuk hypothesis on parasites and sexual selection. Nature, 328, 68-70.
19. READ, A. F. AND HARVEY, P. H. 1989. Reassessment of comparative evidence for Hamilton and Zuk theory on the evolution of secondary sexual characters. Nature, 339, 618-620.
20. TOMLINSON, I. P. M. 1988a. Diploid models of the handicap principle. Heredity, 60, 283-293.
21. TOMLINSON, I. P. M. 1988b. Major-gene models of sexual selection under cyclical natural selection. Evolution, 42, 814-816.
22. TOMLINSON, I. P. M. 1988c. Models of dines in sexual selection by females choice. Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 36, 331-348.
23. TOMLINSON, I. P. M. AND O'DONALD, P. 1989. The co-evolution of multiple male characters and female mating preferences: the 'gene-for-gene' model of sexual selection. J. Theor. Biol., 139, 219-238.
24. WEST-EBERHARD, M. J. 1979. Sexual selection, social competition and evolution. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., 123, 222-234.
25. YEZERINAC, S. M. AND WEATHERHEAD, P. J. 1995. Plumage coloration, differential attraction of vectors and hematozoa infections in birds. J. Anim. Ecol., 64, 528-537.
26. ZAHAVI, A. 1975. Mate selection - a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol., 53, 205-214.