CONTRASTING THEORY WITH THE EMPIRICAL DATA OF SPECIES RECOGNITION
Version of Record online: 3 MAY 2011
© 2011 The Author(s).
Volume 65, Issue 9, pages 2572–2591, September 2011
How to Cite
Ord, T. J., King, L. and Young, A. R. (2011), CONTRASTING THEORY WITH THE EMPIRICAL DATA OF SPECIES RECOGNITION. Evolution, 65: 2572–2591. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01319.x
- Issue online: 1 SEP 2011
- Version of Record online: 3 MAY 2011
- Accepted manuscript online: 11 APR 2011 05:27AM EST
- Received October 25, 2010, Accepted March 28, 2011
Figure S1. The phylogeny of species recognition.
Figure S2. Species discrimination as a function of social context (mating vs. territorial interactions; A) and the sex of the discriminating animal (B).
Figure S3. Species discrimination as a function of the familiarity with the nonconspecific cue(s) (familiar, “sympatric” heterospecific versus unfamiliar, “allopatric” heterospecific; A), and the type of cues that provide potential information on species identity (B).
Table S1. Predictors of species recognition based on the maximum response reported by a study for a given species.
Table S2. Species recognition as a function of the phylogenetic relatedness between the focal species and heterospecific.
Table S3. Predictors of species recognition based on analyses in which data were excluded from those studies that suffered methodological problems (Table 4).
Table S4. Source data.
|EVO_1319_sm_FigureS1.pdf||480K||Supporting info item|
|EVO_1319_sm_FigureS2.pdf||688K||Supporting info item|
|EVO_1319_sm_FigureS3A.pdf||534K||Supporting info item|
|EVO_1319_sm_FigureS3B.pdf||570K||Supporting info item|
|EVO_1319_sm_SuppMat.doc||611K||Supporting info item|
Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.