SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

LITERATURE CITED

  • Andersson, M. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
  • Bakker, T. C. M. 1993. Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature 363:255257.
  • Balmford, A., M. J. Lewis, M. D. Brooke, A. L. R. Thomas, and C. N. Johnson. 2000. Experimental analyses of sexual and natural selection on short tails in a polygynous warbler. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 267:11211128.
  • Barton, N. H., and M. Turelli. 1991. Natural and sexual selection on many loci. Genetics 127:229255.
  • Bisazza, A., and A. Pilastro. 2000. Variation of female preference for male coloration in the eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki. Behav. Genet. 30:207212.
  • Borgia, G., and D. C. Presgraves. 1998. Coevolution of elaborated male display traits in the spotted bowerbird: an experimental test of the threat reduction hypothesis. Anim. Behav. 56:11211128.
  • Brooks, R., and V. Couldridge. 1999. Multiple sexual ornaments coevolve with multiple mating preferences. Am. Nat. 154:3745.
  • Buchholz, R. 1995. Female choice, parasite load and male ornamentation in wild turkeys. Anim. Behav. 50:929943.
  • Calkins, J. D., and N. T. Burley. 2003. Mate choice for multiple ornaments in the California quail, Callipepla californica. Anim. Behav. 65:6981.
  • Canal, D., J. Potti, and J. A. Davila. 2011. Male phenotype predicts extra-pair paternity in pied flycatchers. Behaviour 148:691712.
  • Candolin, U. 2004. Opposing selection on a sexually dimorphic trait through female choice and male competition in a water boatman. Evolution 58:18611864.
  • Candolin, U.. 2005. Why do multiple traits determine mating success? Differential use in female choice and male competition in a water boatman. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 272:4752.
  • Chandler, C. H., C. Ofria, and I. Dworkin. 2013. Runaway sexual selection leads to good genes. Evolution 67:110119.
  • Chappell, M. A., M. Zuk, T. S. Johnsen, and T. H. Kwan. 1997. Mate choice and aerobic capacity in red junglefowl. Behaviour 134:511529.
  • Chiver, I., B. J. M. Stutchbury, and E. S. Morton. 2008. Do male plumage and song characteristics influence female off-territory forays and paternity in the hooded warbler? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62:19811990.
  • Cornwallis, C. K., and T. R. Birkhead. 2007. Experimental evidence that female ornamentation increases the acquisition of sperm and signals fecundity. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 274:583590.
  • Cotton, S., D. W. Rogers, J. Small, A. Pomiankowski, and K. Fowler. 2006. Variation in preference for a male ornament is positively associated with female eyespan in the stalk-eyed fly Diasemopsis meigenii. Proc. R. Soc. B. Biol. Sci. 273:12871292.
  • Cronin, H. 1991. The ant and the peacock: altruism and sexual selection from Darwin to today. Press Syndicate of the Univ. of Cambridge, Cambridge, NY .
  • Cummings, M. E. 2007. Sensory trade-offs predict signal divergence in surfperch. Evolution 61:530545.
  • Cummings, M. E., G. G. Rosenthal, and M. J. Ryan. 2003. A private ultraviolet channel in visual communication. Proc. R. Soc. B. Biol. Sci. 270:897904.
  • Daunt, F., P. Monaghan, S. Wanless, and M. P. Harris. 2003. Sexual ornament size and breeding performance in female and male European Shags Phalacrocorax aristotelis. Ibis 145:5460.
  • Dawkins, R. 1986. The blind watchmaker: why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. WW Norton & Company, Inc., New York.
  • Delope, F., and A. P. Moller. 1993. Female reproductive effort depends on the degree of ornamentation of their mates. Evolution 47:11521160.
  • Droney, D. C. 1996. Environmental influences on male courtship and implications for female choice in a lekking Hawaiian Drosophila. Anim. Behav. 51:821830.
  • Droney, D. C., and M. B. Hock. 1998. Male sexual signals and female choice in Drosophila grimshawi (Diptera: Drosophilidae). J. Insect Behav. 11:5971.
  • Endler, J. A. 1993. Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 340:215225.
  • Endler, J. A., and A. E. Houde. 1995. Geographic variation in female preferences for male traits in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution 49:456468.
  • Endler, J. A., D. A. Westcott, J. R. Madden, and T. Robson. 2005. Animal visual systems and the evolution of color patterns: sensory processing illuminates signal evolution. Evolution 59:17951818.
  • Endler, J. A., L. C. Endler, and N. R. Doerr. 2010. Great bowerbirds create theaters with forced perspective when seen by their audience. Curr. Biol. 20:16791684.
  • Fawcett, T. W., B. Kuijper, I. Pen, and F. J. Weissing. 2007. Should attractive males have more sons? Behav. Ecol. 18:7180.
  • Fawcett, T. W., B. Kuijper, F. J. Weissing, and I. Pen. 2011. Sex-ratio control erodes sexual selection, revealing evolutionary feedback from adaptive plasticity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108:1592515930.
  • Fisher, R. A. 1930. The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, U.K.
  • Forsman, A., and M. Hagman. 2006. Calling is an honest indicator of paternal genetic quality in poison frogs. Evolution 60:21482157.
  • Galvan, I., and J. Moreno. 2009. Variation in effects of male plumage ornaments: the case of Iberian Pied Flycatchers. Ibis 151:541546.
  • Goddard, K., and A. Mathis. 1997. Do opercular flaps of male longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis) serve as sexual ornaments during female mate choice? Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 9:223231.
  • Gong, A., and R. M. Gibson. 1996. Reversal of a female preference after visual exposure to a predator in the guppy, Poecilia reticulata. Anim. Behav. 52:10071015.
  • Grafen, A. 1990. Biological signals as handicaps. J. Theor. Biol. 144(4):517546.
  • Griggio, M., H. Hoi, and A. Pilastro. 2010. Plumage maintenance affects ultraviolet colour and female preference in the budgerigar. Behav. Process. 84:739744.
  • Hagelin, J. C. 2003. A field study of ornaments, body size, and mating behavior of the Gambel's Quail. Wilson Bull. 115:246257.
  • Hagelin, J. C., and J. D. Ligon. 2001. Female quail prefer testosterone-mediated traits, rather than the ornate plumage of males. Anim. Behav. 61:465476.
  • Hampton, K. J., K. A. Hughes, and A. E. Houde. 2009. The allure of the distinctive: reduced sexual responsiveness of female guppies to ‘redundant’ male colour patterns. Ethology 115:475481.
  • Hebets, E. A., and G. W. Uetz. 2000. Leg ornamentation and the efficacy of courtship display in four species of wolf spider (Araneae: Lycosidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 47:280286.
  • Hebets, E. A., J. A. Stafstrom, R. L. Rodriguez, and D. J. Wilgers. 2011. Enigmatic ornamentation eases male reliance on courtship performance for mating success. Anim. Behav. 81:963972.
  • Heindl, M., and H. Winkler. 2003. Female canaries (Serinus canaria) associate more with males that contrast strongly against the background. Ethology 109:259271.
  • Hingle, A., K. Fowler, and A. Pomiankowski. 2001. Size-dependent mate preference in the stalk-eyed fly Cyrtodiopsis dalmanni. Anim. Behav. 61:589595.
  • Iwasa, Y., and A. Pomiankowski. 1994. The evolution of mate preferences for multiple sexual ornaments. Evolution 48:853867.
  • Iwasa, Y., and A. Pomiankowski. 1995. Continual change in mate preferences. Nature 377:420422.
  • Iwasa, Y., and A. Pomiankowski. 1999. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 200(1):97109.
  • Iwasa, Y., A. Pomiankowski, and S. Nee. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences 2 – the handicap principle. Evolution 45:14311442.
  • Johnsen, T. S., and M. Zuk. 1996. Repeatability of mate choice in female red jungle fowl. Behav. Ecol. 7(3):243246.
  • Johnson, J. B., and A. L. Basolo. 2003. Predator exposure alters female mate choice in the green swordtail. Behav. Ecol. 14:619625.
  • Johnson, K., R. Thornhill, J. D. Ligon, and M. Zuk. 1993. The direction of mothers and daughters preferences and the heritability of male ornaments in red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus). Behav. Ecol. 4:254259.
  • Johnson, A. M., G. Chappell, A. C. Price, F. H. Rodd, R. Olendorf, and K. A. Hughes. 2010. Inbreeding depression and inbreeding avoidance in a natural population of guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Ethology 116:448457.
  • Jones, I. L., and F. M. Hunter. 1993. Mutual sexual selection in a monogamous seabird. Nature 362:238239.
  • Jones, I. L., and F. M. Hunter. 1999. Experimental evidence for mutual inter- and intrasexual selection favouring a crested auklet ornament. Anim. Behav. 57:521528.
  • Karino, K. 1997. Female mate preference for males having long and symmetric fins in the bower-holding cichlid Cyathopharynx furcifer. Ethology 103:883892.
  • Karino, K., T. Ishiwatari, H. Kudo, and A. Sato. 2011. Female mate preference for a costly ornament in male guppies. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65:13051315.
  • Karubian, J., J. P. Swaddle, C. W. Varian-Ramos, and M. S. Webster. 2009. The relative importance of male tail length and nuptial plumage on social dominance and mate choice in the red-backed fairy-wren Malurus melanocephalus: evidence for the multiple receiver hypothesis. J. Avian Biol. 40:559568.
  • Kekalainen, J., H. Valkama, H. Huuskonen, and J. Taskinen. 2010. Multiple sexual ornamentation signals male quality and predicts female preference in minnows. Ethology 116:895903.
  • Kekalainen, J., H.-R. Leppanen, H. Huuskonen, Y.-T. Lai, H. Valkama, and J. Taskinen. 2011. The information content of odour, colour and tactile cues in the mate choice of minnows. Behaviour 148:909925.
  • Kirkpatrick, M. 1982. Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:112.
  • Kirkpatrick, M.. 1996. Good genes and direct selection in the evolution of mating preferences. Evolution 50:21252140.
  • Kirkpatrick, M., and M. J. Ryan. 1991. The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:3338.
  • Kodric-Brown, A., and P. F. Nicoletto. 2001. Female choice in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata): the interaction between male color and display. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 50:346351.
  • Kotiaho, J., R. V. Alatalo, J. Mappes, and S. Parri. 1996. Sexual selection in a wolf spider: male drumming activity, body size, and viability. Evolution 50:19771981.
  • Kokko, H., R. Brooks, J. M. McNamara, and A. I. Houston. 2002. The sexual selection continuum. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Biol. Sci. 269:13311340.
  • Kokko, H., M. D. Jennions, and R. Brooks. 2006. Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37:4366.
  • Kraak, S. B. M., T. C. M. Bakker, and B. Mundwiler. 1999. Sexual selection in sticklebacks in the field: correlates of reproductive, mating, and paternal success. Behav. Ecol. 10:696706.
  • Kuijper, B., I. Pen, and F. J. Weissing. 2012. A guide to sexual selection theory. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 43:287311.
  • Lande, R. 1981. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:37213725.
  • Leichty, E. R., and J. W. Grier. 2006. Importance of facial pattern to sexual selection in golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera). Auk. 123:962966.
  • Ligon, J. D., R. Kimball, and M. Merola-Zwartjes. 1998. Mate choice by female red junglefowl: the issues of multiple ornaments and fluctuating asymmetry. Anim. Behav. 55:4150.
  • Loyau, A., M. S. Jalme, and G. Sorci. 2005. Intra- and intersexual selection for multiple traits in the peacock (Pavo cristatus). Ethology 111:810820.
  • Macias, G. C., G. Jimenez, and B. Contreras. 1994. Correlation evidence of a sexually-selected handicap. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 35:253259.
  • Mateos, C., and J. Carranza. 1995. Female choice for morphological features of male ring-necked pheasants. Anim. Behav. 49:737748.
  • Mateos, C., and J. Carranza. 1999. Effects of male dominance and courtship display on female choice in the ring-necked pheasant. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 45:235244.
  • Malmgren, J. C., and M. Enghag. 2008. Female preference for male dorsal crests in great crested newts (Triturus cristatus). Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 20:7180.
  • Marchetti, K. 1998. The evolution of multiple male traits in the yellow-browed leaf warbler. Anim. Behav. 55:361376.
  • Martin, J., and P. Lopez. 2008. Female sensory bias may allow honest chemical signaling by male Iberian rock lizards. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62:19271934.
  • McGlothlin, J. W., P. G. Parker, V. Nolan, and E. D. Ketterson. 2005. Correlational selection leads to genetic integration of body size and an attractive plumage trait in dark-eyed juncos. Evolution 59:658671.
  • McKinnon, J. S. 1995. Video mate preferences of female three-spined sticklebacks from populations with divergent male coloration. Anim. Behav. 50:16451655.
  • Mead, L. S., and S. J. Arnold. 2004. Quantitative genetic models of sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:264271.
  • Moller, A. P. 1993a. Sexual selection in the barn swaller Hirundo-rustica 3. Female tail ornaments. Evolution 47:417431.
  • Moller, A. P.. 1993b. Morphology and sexual selection in the barn swallow Hirundo-rustica in Chernobyl, Ukraine. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 252:5157.
  • Moller, A. P., N. Saino, G. Taramino, P. Galeotti, and S. Ferrario. 1998. Paternity and multiple signaling: effects of a secondary sexual character and song on paternity in the barn swallow. Am. Nat. 151:236242.
  • Morehouse, N. I., and R. L. Rutowski. 2010. In the eyes of the beholders: female choice and avian predation risk associated with an exaggerated male butterfly color. Am. Nat. 176:768784.
  • Moreno-Rueda, G. 2006. Sexual size dimorphism and assortative mating for morphological traits in Passer domesticus. J. Ethol. 24:227230.
  • Murphy, T. G. 2007. Racketed tail of the male and female turquoise-browed motmot: male but not female tail length correlates with pairing success, performance, and reproductive success. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61:911918.
  • Nicoletto, P. F. 1993. Female sexual response to condition-dependent ornaments in the guppy, Poecilia-reticulata. Anim. Behav. 46:441450.
  • Nolan, P. M., F. S. Dobson, M. Nicolaus, T. J. Karels, K. J. McGraw, and P. Jouventin. 2010. Mutual mate choice for colorful traits in King Penguins. Ethology 116:635644.
  • Oakes, E. J., and P. Barnard. 1994. Fluctuating asymmetry and mate choice in paradise whydahs, Vidua-paradisiae – an experimental manipulation. Anim. Behav. 48:937943.
  • Okuda, N., K. Fukumori, and Y. Yanagisawa. 2003. Male ornamentation and its condition-dependence in a paternal mouthbrooding cardinalfish with extraordinary sex roles. J. Ethol. 21:153159.
  • Olendorf, R., F. H. Rodd, D. Punzalan, A. E. Houde, C. Hurt, D. N. Reznick, and K. A. Hughes. 2006. Frequency-dependent survival in natural guppy populations. Nature 441:633636 .
  • Oliveira, R. F., and M. R. Custodio. 1998. Claw size, waving display and female choice in the European fiddler crab, Uca tangeri. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 10:241251.
  • Palokangas, P., E. Korpimaki, H. Hakkarainen, E. Huhta, P. Tolonen, and R. V. Alatalo. 1994. Female kestrels gain reproductive success by choosing brightly ornamented males. Anim. Behav. 47:443448.
  • Petrie, M., and A. Williams. 1993. Peahens lay more eggs for peacocks with larger trains. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Biol. Sci. 251:127131.
  • Pizzolon, M., M. B. Rasotto, and C. Mazzoldi. 2008. Male lagoon gobies, Knipowitschia panizzae, prefer more ornamented to larger females. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 62:521528.
  • Pomiankowski, A. 1987. Sexual selection – the handicap principle does work sometimes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci.231(1262):123145.
  • Pomiankowski, A., and Y. Iwasa. 1993. Evolution of multiple sexual preferences by Fisher runaway process of sexual selection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Biol. Sci. 253:173181.
  • Pomiankowski, A., and Y. Iwasa. 2001. How does mate choice contribute to exaggeration and diversity in sexual characters. Pp: 203220 in R. Noë, J. van Hooff, and P. Hammerstein, eds. Economics in nature: social dilemmas, mate choice and biological markets. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
  • Pomiankowski, A., Y. Iwasa, and S. Nee. 1991. The evolution of costly mate preferences. 1. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45:14221430.
  • Pryke, S. R., and S. Andersson. 2005. Experimental evidence for female choice and energetic costs of male tail elongation in red-collared widowbirds. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 86:3543.
  • Pryke, S. R., S. Andersson, and M. J. Lawes. 2001. Sexual selection of multiple handicaps in the red-collared widowbird: female choice of tail length but not carotenoid display. Evolution 55:14521463.
  • Regosin, J. V., and S. Pruett-Jones. 2001. Sexual selection and tail-length dimorphism in scissor-tailed Flycatchers. Auk 118:167175.
  • Robinson, D. M., M. S. Tudor, and M. R. Morris. 2011. Female preference and the evolution of an exaggerated male ornament: the shape of the preference function matters. Anim. Behav. 81:10151021.
  • Rosenthal, G. G., and C. S. Evans. 1998. Female preference for swords in Xiphophorus helleri reflects a bias for large apparent size. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95(8):44314436.
  • Rosenthal, G. G., T. Y. F. Martinez, F. J. G. de Leon, and M. J. Ryan. 2001. Shared preferences by predators and females for male ornaments in swordtails. Am. Nat. 158:146154.
  • Ryan, M. J., and A. Keddy-Hector. 1992. Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am. Nat. 139:S4S35.
  • Saino, N., C. R. Primmer, H. Ellegren, and A. P. Moller. 1997. An experimental study of paternity and tail ornamentation in the barn swallow (Hirundo rustica). Evolution 51:562570.
  • South, S. H., and G. Arnqvist. 2011. Male, but not female, preference for an ornament expressed in both sexes of the polygynous mosquito Sabethes cyaneus. Anim. Behav. 81:645651.
  • Schlupp, I., R. Riesch, M. Tobler, M. Plath, J. Parzefall, and M. Schartl. 2010. A novel, sexually selected trait in poeciliid fishes: female preference for mustache-like, rostral filaments in male Poecilia sphenops. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64:18491855.
  • Simmons, L. W. 1995. Correlates of male quality in the field cricket, Gryllus campestris L: age, size, and symmetry determine pairing success in field populations. Behav. Ecol. 6:376381.
  • Simon, C. G., I. P. F. Owens, and T. Burke. 1999. Female choice and annual reproductive success favour less-ornamented male house sparrows. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 266:765770.
  • Sirkia, P. M., and T. Laaksonen. 2009. Distinguishing between male and territory quality: females choose multiple traits in the pied flycatcher. Anim. Behav. 78:10511060.
  • Tazzyman, S. J., and Y. Iwasa. 2010. Sexual selection can increase the effect of random genetic drift – a quantitative genetic model of polymorphism in Oophaga pumilio, the Strawberry poison-dart frog. Evolution 64:17191728.
  • Tomkins, J. L., and L. W. Simmons. 1998. Female choice and manipulations of forceps size and symmetry in the earwig Forficula auricularia L. Anim. Behav. 56:347356.
  • Veit, A. C., and I. L. Jones. 2003. Function of tail streamers of red-tailed tropicbirds (Phaethon rubricauda) as inferred from patterns of variation. Auk 120:10331043.
  • Velando, A., C. M. Lessells, and J. C. Marquez. 2001. The function of female and male ornaments in the Inca Tern: evidence for links between ornament expression and both adult condition and reproductive performance. J. Avian Biol. 32:311318.
  • Watson, N. L., and L. W. Simmons. 2010. Mate choice in the dung beetle Onthophagus sagittarius: are female horns ornaments? Behav. Ecol. 21:424430.
  • Walling, C. A., N. J. Royle, J. Lindstroem, and N. B. Metcalfe. 2008. Experience-induced preference for short-sworded males in the green swordtail, Xiphophorus helleri. Anim. Behav. 76:271276.
  • Weatherhead, P. J., and P. T. Boag. 1995. Air and extra-pair mating success relative to male quality in red-winged blackbirds. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 37:8191.
  • Wong, B. B. M., and G. G. Rosenthal. 2006. Female disdain for swords in a swordtail fish. Am. Nat. 167:136140.
  • Wilkinson, G. S., and P. R. Reillo. 1994. Female choice response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 255:16.
  • Wilkinson, G. S., H. Kahler, and R. H. Baker. 1998. Evolution of female mating preferences in stalk-eyed flies. Behav. Ecol. 9:525533.
  • Wilson, D. R., K. L. Bayly, X. J. Nelson, M. Gillings, and C. S. Evans. 2008. Alarm calling best predicts mating and reproductive success in ornamented male fowl, Gallus gallus. Anim. Behav. 76:543554.
  • Yezerinac, S. M., and P. J. Weatherhead. 1997. Extra-pair mating, male plumage coloration and sexual selection in yellow warblers (Dendroica petechia). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 264:527532.
  • Zahavi, A. 1975. Mate selection – selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53:205214.
  • Zampiga, E., H. Hoi, and A. Pilastro. 2004. Preening, plumage reflectance and female choice in budgerigars. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 16:339349.
  • Zuk, M., T. S. Johnsen, and T. Maclarty. 1995a. Endocrine-immune interactions, ornaments and mate choice in red jungle fowl. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 260:205210.
  • Zuk, M., S. L. Popma, and T. S. Johnsen. 1995b. Male courtship displays, ornaments and female mate choice in captive red jungle fowl. Behaviour 132:821836.

Associate Editor: J. Hunt