Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Intersexuelle Selektion: was Weibchen wollen

  • Chapter
Book cover Verhaltensbiologie

Part of the book series: Springer-Lehrbuch ((SLB))

  • 2738 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Im Unterschied zu Männchen können Weibchen in der Regel ihren Fortpflanzungserfolg nicht durch zusätzliche Verpaarungen erhöhen. Stattdessen können sie zur Maximierung ihres Fortpflanzungserfolgs die Qualität und Überlebenschancen ihrer Nachkommen verbessern. Dies ist grundsätzlich auf zwei Arten möglich. Erstens können sie ihre mütterliche Investition, die durch Zeit und Energie limitiert wird, erhöhen (→ Kap. 11). Zweitens können sie durch die Wahl eines entsprechenden Partners Vorteile für sich oder ihre Jungen beziehen. Diese Vorteile können direkter Natur sein, indem sie Männchen wählen, die ihnen materielle Vorteile verschaffen oder väterliches Investment in den Nachwuchs leisten (→ Kap. 9.4). Weibchen können auch indirekte Vorteile aus der Partnerwahl beziehen, indem sie Männchen hoher genetischer Qualität wählen, die diese Qualitätsmerkmale an die Jungen weitergeben (→ Kap. 9.5). Manche Befunde sprechen allerdings auch dafür, dass die Partnerwahl der Weibchen nicht adaptiv ist, sondern dass Männchen in einem evolutionären Wettrennen zwischen den Geschlechtern sinnesphysiologische Präferenzen der Weibchen ausnutzen (→ Kap. 9.8). Unter Umständen konkurrieren Weibchen auch um Männchen hoher Qualität oder sie versuchen, den Fortpflanzungserfolg von Rivalinnen zu beeinträchtigen (→ Kap. 9.7).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Able DJ (1996) The contagion indicator hypothesis for parasite-mediated sexual selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:2229–2233

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Aeschlimann PB, Häberli MA, Reusch TBH, Boehm T, Milinski M (2003) Female sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus use self-reference to optimize MHC allele number during mate selection. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:119–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberts SA (1999) Paternal kin discrimination in wild baboons. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1501–1506

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Altmann J (1990) Primate males go where the females are. Anim Behav 39: 193–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amundsen T (2000) Why are female birds ornamented? Trends Ecol Evol 15: 149–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Amundsen T, Forsgren E (2001) Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:13155–13160

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Amundsen T, Forsgren E, Hansen LTT (1997) On the function of female ornaments: male bluethroats prefer colourful females. Proc R Soc Lond B 264: 1579–1586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson M (1982) Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature 299:818–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson J, Borg-Karlson A-K, Wiklund C (2000) Sexual cooperation and conflict in butterflies: a male-transferred anti-aphrodisiac reduces harassment of recently mated females. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1271–1275

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist G (1998) Comparative evidence for the evolution of genitalia by sexual selection. Nature 393:784–786

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist G (2004) Sexual conflict and sexual selection: lost in the chase. Evolution 58:1383–1388

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2002) Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415:787–789

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist G, Edvardsson M, Friberg U, Nilsson T (2000) Sexual conflict promotes speciation in insects. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:10460–10464

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arnqvist G, Jones TM, Elgar MA (2003) Insect behaviour: reversal of sex roles in nuptial feeding. Nature 424:387

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker TCM (1993) Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature 363:255–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker TCM, Pomiankowski A (1995) The genetic basis of female mate preferences. J Evol Biol 8:129–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber I, Arnott SA, Braithwaite VA, Andrew J, Huntingford FA (2001) Indirect fitness consequences of mate choice in sticklebacks: offspring of brighter males grow slowly but resist parasitic infections. Proc R Soc Lond B 268: 71–76

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barraclough TG, Harvey PH, Nee S (1995) Sexual selection and taxonomic diversity in passerine birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 259:211–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basolo AL (1990) Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250:808–810

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beecher MD (1991) Successes and failures of parent-offspring recognition in animals. In: Hepper PG (ed) Kin recognition. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, pp 94–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellemain E, Zedrosser A, Manel S, Waits LP, Taberlet P, Swenson JE (2006) The dilemma of female mate selection in the brown bear, a species with sexually selected infanticide. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:283–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkhead TR, Pizzari T (2002) Postcopulatory sexual selection. Nat Rev Genet 3: 262–273

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blanckenhorn WU, Hosken DJ, Martin OY, Reim C, Teuschl Y, Ward PI (2002) The costs of copulating in the dung fly Sepsis cynipsea. Behav Ecol 13: 353–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomqvist D, Andersson M, Küpper C, Cuthill IC, Kis J, Lanctot RB, Sandercock BK, Szekely T, Wallander J, Kempenaers B (2002) Genetic similarity between mates and extra-pair parentage in three species of shorebirds. Nature 419:613–615

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blows MW (2002) Interaction between natural and sexual selection during the evolution of mate recognition. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1113–1118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boughman JW (2001) Divergent sexual selection enhances reproductive isolation in sticklebacks. Nature 411:944–948

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boul KE, Funk WC, Darst CR, Cannatella DC, Ryan MJ (2007) Sexual selection drives speciation in an Amazonian frog. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:399–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs SE, Godin JGJ, Dugatkin LA (1996) Mate-choice copying under predation risk in the Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behav Ecol 7:151–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks R (2000) Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature 406:67–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan KL, Catchpole CK (2000) Song as an indicator of male parental effort in the sedge warbler. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:321–326

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan KL, Spencer KA, Goldsmith AR, Catchpole CK (2003) Song as an honest signal of past developmental stress in the European starling (Sturnus vulgaris). Proc R Soc Lond B 270:1149–1156

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burley N (1986) Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am Nat 127:415–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bussière LF, Basit HA, Gwynne DT (2005) Preferred males are not always good providers: female choice and male investment in tree crickets. Behav Ecol 16: 223–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Candolin U (2003) The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev 78:575–595

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Candolin U, Reynolds JD (2001) Sexual signaling in the European bitterling: females learn the truth by direct inspection of the resource. Behav Ecol 12: 407–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cant M, English S, Reeve H, Field J (2006) Escalated conflict in a social hierarchy. Proc R Soc Lond B 273:2977–2984

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Catchpole CK (1987) Bird song, sexual selection and female choice. Trends Ecol Evol 2:94–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaine AS, Lyon BE (2008) Adaptive plasticity in female mate choice dampens sexual selection on male ornaments in the lark bunting. Science 319:459–462

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman T, Liddle LF, Kalb JM, Wolfner MF, Partridge L (1995) Cost of mating in Drosophila melanogaster females is mediated by male accessory gland products. Nature 373:241–244

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 18:41–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chippindale AK, Gibson JR, Rice WR (2001) Negative genetic correlation for adult fitness between sexes reveals ontogenetic conflict in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1671–1675

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke FM, Miethe GH, Bennett NC (2001) Reproductive suppression in female Damaraland mole-rats Cryptomys damarensis: dominant control or self-restraint? Proc R Soc Lond B 268:899–909

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock TH (1989) Female transfer and inbreeding avoidance in social mammals. Nature 337:70–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock TH (1998) Reproductive skew, concessions and limited control. Trends Ecol Evol 13:288–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock TH (2002) Breeding together: kin selection and mutualism in cooperative vertebrates. Science 296:69–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Clutton-Brock TH, Hodge SJ, Spong G, Russell AF, Jordan NR, Bennett NC, Sharpe LL, Manser MB (2006) Intrasexual competition and sexual selection in cooperative mammals. Nature 444:1065–1068

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn A, Osmond HL, Mulder RA, Green DJ, Double MC (2003) Divorce, dispersal and incest avoidance in the cooperatively breeding superb fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus. J Anim Ecol 72:189–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooley JR, Marshall DC (2004) Threshold or comparisons: mate choice criteria and sexual selection in a periodical cicada, Magicicada septendecim (Hemiptera: Cicadidae). Behaviour 141:647–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooney R, Bennett NC (2000) Inbreeding avoidance and reproductive skew in a cooperative mammal. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:801–806

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cordero C, Eberhard WG (2003) Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J Evol Biol 16:1–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crudgington HS, Siva-Jothy MT (2000) Genital damage, kicking and early death. Nature 407:855–856

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings ME, Larkins-Ford J, Reilly CRL, Wong RY, Ramsey M, Hofmann HA (2008) Sexual and social stimuli elicit rapid and contrasting genomic responses. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:393–402

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham EJA, Birkhead TR (1998) Sex roles and sexual selection. Anim Behav 56:1311–1322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham EJA, Russell AF (2000) Egg investment is influenced by male attractiveness in the mallard. Nature 404:74–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dale J (2000) Ornamental plumage does not signal male quality in red-billed queleas. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:2143–2149

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • David P, Bjorksten T, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2000) Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature 406:186–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davies NB (2000) Multi-male breeding groups in birds: ecological causes and social conflict. In: Kappeler PM (ed) Primate males. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, pp 11–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies NB, Hartley IR, Hatchwell BJ, Langmore NE (1996) Female control of copulations to maximize male help: a comparison of polygynandrous alpine accentors, Prunella collaris, and dunnocks, P. modularis. Anim Behav 51: 27–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • den Hartog PM, de Kort SR, ten Cate C (2007) Hybrid vocalizations are effective within, but not outside, an avian hybrid zone. Behav Ecol 18:608–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra PD, Seehausen O, Groothuis TGG (2008) Intrasexual competition among females and the stabilization of a conspicuous colour polymorphism in a Lake Victoria cichlid fish. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:519–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domb LG, Pagel M (2001) Sexual swellings advertise female quality in wild baboons. Nature 410:204–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Double M, Cockburn A (2000) Pre-dawn infidelity: females control extra-pair mating in superb fairy-wrens. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:465–470

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Duarte LC, Bouteiller C, Fontanillas IP, Petit E, Perrin N (2003) Inbreeding in the greater white-toothed shrew, Crocidura russula. Evolution 57:638–645

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dugatkin LA (1992) Sexual selection and imitation: females copy the mate choice of others. Am Nat 139:1384–1389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dugatkin LA, Godin JG (1992) Reversal of female mate choice by copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proc R Soc Lond B 249:179–184

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • East ML, Burke T, Wilhelm K, Greig C, Hofer H (2003) Sexual conflicts in spotted hyenas: male and female mating tactics and their reproductive outcome with respect to age, social status and tenure. Proc R Soc Lond B 270: 1247–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberhard WG (1990) Animal genitalia and female choice. Am Sci 78:134–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberhard WG (1996) Female control: sexual selection by cryptic female choice. Princeton Univ Press, Princeton/NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberle M, Kappeler PM (2004) Selected polyandry: female choice and inter-sexual conflict in a small nocturnal solitary primate (Microcebus murinus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:91–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edvardsson M, Tregenza T (2005) Why do male Callosobruchus maculatus harm their mates? Behav Ecol 16:788–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards SV, Kingan SB, Calkins JD, Balakrishnan CN, Jennings WB, Swanson WJ, Sorenson MD (2005) Speciation in birds: genes, geography, and sexual selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:6550–6557

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Engeler B, Reyer H-U (2001) Choosy females and indiscriminate males: mate choice in mixed populations of sexual and hybridogenetic water frogs (Rana lessonae, Rana esculenta). Behav Ecol 12:600–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engqvist L, Sauer KP (2001) Strategic male mating effort and cryptic male choice in a scorpionfly. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:729–735

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Evans JP, Zane L, Francescato S, Pilastro A (2003) Directional postcopulatory sexual selection revealed by artificial insemination. Nature 421:360–363

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA (2002) Material and genetic benefits of female multiple mating and polyandry. Anim Behav 64:361–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher DO, Double MC, Blomberg SP, Jennions MD, Cockburn A (2006) Postmating sexual selection increases lifetime fitness of polyandrous females in the wild. Nature 444:89–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Foerster K, Delhey K, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT, Kempenaers B (2003) Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings. Nature 425:714–717

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Foerster K, Coulson T, Sheldon BC, Pemberton JM, Clutton-Brock TH, Kruuk LEB (2007) Sexually antagonistic genetic variation for fitness in red deer. Nature 447:1107–1110

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Folstad I, Karter AJ (1992) Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. Am Nat 139:603–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forstmeier W, Kempenaers B, Meyer A, Leisler B (2002) A novel song parameter correlates with extra-pair paternity and reflects male longevity. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1479–1485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox EA (2002) Female tactics to reduce sexual harassment in the Sumatran orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus abelii). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:93–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox CW, Rauter CM (2003) Bet-hedging and the evolution of multiple mating. Evol Ecol Res 5:273–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Friberg M, Vongvanich N, Borg-Karlson A-K, Kemp DJ, Merilaita S, Wiklund C (2008) Female mate choice determines reproductive isolation between sympatric butterflies. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:873–886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fromhage L, Schneider JM (2005) Safer sex with feeding females: sexual conflict in a cannibalistic spider. Behav Ecol 16:377–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gavrilets S, Arnqvist G, Friberg U (2001) The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:531–539

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson RM, Langen TA (1996) How do animals choose their mates? Trends Ecol Evol 11:468–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil D, Gahr M (2002) The honesty of bird song: multiple constraints for multiple traits. Trends Ecol Evol 17:133–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilchrist JS (2006) Female eviction, abortion, and infanticide in banded mongooses (Mungos mungo): implications for social control of reproduction and synchronized parturition. Behav Ecol 17:664–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González A, Rossini C, Eisner M, Eisner T (1999) Sexually transmitted chemical defense in a moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 5570–5574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grafe TU (1997) Costs and benefits of male choice in the lek-breeding reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus. Anim Behav 53:1103–1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grafen A (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. J theoret Biol 144:517–546

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Greeff JM, Parker GA (2000) Spermicide by females: what should males do? Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1759–1763

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood PJ (1980) Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Anim Behav 28:1140–1162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross MR, Suk HY, Robertson CT (2007) Courtship and genetic quality: asymmetric males show their best side. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:2115–2122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday T, Arnold SJ (1987) Multiple mating by females: a perspective from quantitative genetics. Anim Behav 35:939–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218:384–387

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton WD, Axelrod R, Tanese R (1990) Sexual reproduction as an adaptation to resist parasites (a review). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:3566–3573

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hankison SJ, Morris MR (2003) Avoiding a compromise between sexual selection and species recognition: female swordtail fish assess multiple species-specific cues. Behav Ecol 14:282–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen BT, Johannessen LE, Slagsvold T (2007) No cultural transmission of species recognition between parents and offspring in free-living great tits and blue tits. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1203–1209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauber ME, Sherman PW (2001) Self-referent phenotype matching: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Trends Neurosci 24:609–616

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heinze J, Keller L (2000) Alternative reproductive strategies: a queen perspective in ants. Trends Ecol Evol 15:508–512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Higgie M, Chenoweth S, Blows MW (2000) Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science 290:519–521

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman JI, Forcada J, Trathan PN, Amos W (2007) Female fur seals show active choice for males that are heterozygous and unrelated. Nature 445:912–914

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Holland B, Rice WR (1998) Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland B, Rice WR (1999) Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:5083–5088

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Immelmann K (1972) Sexual and other long-term aspects of imprinting in birds and other species. Adv Stud Behav 4:147–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A, Nee S (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences: the handicap principle. Evolution 45:1431–1442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janetos AC (1980) Strategies of female mate choice: a theoretical analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:107–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennions MD, Petrie M (1997) Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev 72:283–327

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jiggins CD, Mallet J (2000) Bimodal hybrid zones and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 15:250–255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnsen A, Andersen V, Sunding C, Lifjeld JT (2000) Female bluethroats enhance offspring immunocompetence through extra-pair copulations. Nature 406: 296–299

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone RA (2000) Models of reproductive skew: a review and synthesis. Ethology 106:5–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone RA, Cant MA (1999) Reproductive skew and the threat of eviction: a new perspective. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:275–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone RA, Cant MA (2000) Power struggles, dominance testing, and reproductive skew. Am Nat 155:406–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone RA, Keller L (2000) How males can gain by harming their mates: sexual conflict, seminal toxins, and the cost of mating. Am Nat 156:368–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones IL, Hunter FM (1999) Experimental evidence for mutual inter- and intrasexual selection favouring a crested auklet ornament. Anim Behav 57: 521–528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jones AG, Walker D, Avise JC (2001) Genetic evidence for extreme polyandry and extraordinary sex-role reversal in a pipefish. Proc R Soc Lond B 268: 2531–2535

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kavaliers M, Fudge MA, Colwell DD, Choleris E (2003) Aversive avoidance responses of female mice to the odors of males infected with an ectoparasite and the effects of prior familiarity. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:423–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller L, Fournier D (2002) Lack of inbreeding avoidance in the Argentine ant Linepithema humile. Behav Ecol 13:28–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller L, Reeve HK (1994) Partitioning of reproduction in animal societies. Trends Ecol Evol 9:98–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller L, Waller DM (2002) Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol Evol 17:230–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kempenaers B, Verheyen GR, Dhondt AA (1997) Extrapair paternity in the blue tit (Parus caeruleus): female choice, male characteristics, and offspring quality. Behav Ecol 8:481–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keyser AJ, Hill GE (2000) Structurally based plumage coloration is an honest signal of male quality in male blue grosbeaks. Behav Ecol 11:202–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilner RM, Noble DG, Davies NB (1999) Signals of need in parent-offspring communication and their exploitation by the common cuckoo. Nature 397: 667–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ (1991) The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koene JM, Schulenburg H (2005) Shooting darts: co-evolution and counter-adaptation in hermaphroditic snails. BMC Evol Biol 5:25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kokko H (2001) Fisherian and ‘good genes’ benefits of mate choice: how (not) to distinguish between them. Ecol Lett 4:322–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokko H, Johnstone RA (1999) Social queuing in animal societies: a dynamic model of reproductive skew. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:571–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kokko H, Brooks R, McNamara JM, Houston AI (2002) The sexual selection continuum. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1331–1340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kothiaho JS, Simmons LW, Tomkins JL (2001) Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410:684–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Künzler R, Bakker TCM (2000) Pectoral fins and paternal quality in sticklebacks. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:999–1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lande R (1980) Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34:292–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann L, Perrin N (2003) Inbreeding avoidance through kin recognition: choosy females boost male dispersal. Am Nat 162:638–652

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leinders-Zufall T, Brennan P, Widmayer P, Chandramani SP, Maul-Pavicic A, Jäger M, Li X-H, Breer H, Zufall F, Boehm T (2004) MHC class I peptides as chemosensory signals in the vomeronasal organ. Science 306:1033–1037

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lihoreau M, Zimmer C, Rivault C (2007) Kin recognition and incest avoidance in a group-living insect. Behav Ecol 18:880–887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linsenmair KE (1987) Kin recognition in subsocial arthropods, in particular in the desert isopod Hemilepistus reaumuri. In: Fletcher DJC, Michener CD (eds) Kin recognition in animals. John Wiley, New York, pp 121–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz K (1941) Vergleichende Bewegungsstudien an Anatiden. J Ornithol 89: 194–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Loyau A, Saint Jalme M, Mauget R, Sorci G (2007) Male sexual attractiveness affects the investment of maternal resources into the eggs in peafowl (Pavo cristatus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 61:1043–1052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maan ME, Seehausen O, Söderberg L, Johnson L, Ripmeester EA, Mrosso HD, Taylor MI, van Dooren TJ, van Alphen JJ (2004) Intraspecific sexual selection on a speciation trait, male coloration, in the Lake Victoria cichlid, Pundamilia nyererei. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2445–2452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machnik P, Kramer B (2008) Female choice by electric pulse duration: attractiveness of the males’ communication signal assessed by female bulldog fish, Marcusenius pongolensis (Mormyridae, Teleostei). J Exp Biol 211: 1969–1977

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Markow TA (1997) Assortative fertilizations in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:7756–7760

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin OY, Hosken DJ (2003) The evolution of reproductive isolation through sexual conflict. Nature 423:979–982

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martín J, Civantos E, Amo L, López P (2007) Chemical ornaments of male lizards Psammodromus algirus may reveal their parasite load and health state to females Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:173–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mateo JM (2003) Kin recognition in ground squirrels and other rodents. J Mammal 84:1163–1181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mateo JM, Johnston RE (2000) Kin recognition and the ‘armpit effect’: evidence of self-referent phenotype matching. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:695–700

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mays HL Jr, Hill GE (2004) Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol Evol 19:554–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McComb KE (1991) Female choice for high roaring rates in red deer, Cervus elaphus. Anim Behav 41:79–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinney F, Derrickson SR, Mineau P (1983) Forced copulation in waterfowl. Behaviour 86:250–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendelson TC, Shaw KL (2005) Rapid speciation in an arthropod. Nature 433: 375–376

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M, Bakker TCM (1990) Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature 344:330–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M, Bakker TCM (1992) Costs influence sequential mate choice in sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Proc R Soc Lond B 250:229–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milinski M, Griffiths S, Wegner KM, Reusch TBH, Haas-Assenbaum A, Boehm T (2005) Mate choice decisions of stickleback females predictably modified by MHC peptide ligands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:4414–4416

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miller GT, Pitnick S (2002) Sperm-female coevolution in Drosophila. Science 298:1230–1233

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP (1992) Female swallow preference for symmetrical male sexual ornaments. Nature 357:238–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP, Cuervo JJ (1998) Speciation and feather ornamentation in birds. Evolution 52:859–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Møller AP, Jennions MD (2001) How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection? Naturwissenschaften 88:401–415

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morrow EH, Arnqvist G, Pitnick S (2003) Adaptation versus pleiotropy: why do males harm their mates? Behav Ecol 14:802–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller MN, Kahlenberg SM, Emery Thompson M, Wrangham RW (2007) Male coercion and the costs of promiscuous mating for female chimpanzees. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:1009–1014

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oetting S, Pröve E, Bischof H-J (1995) Sexual imprinting as a two-stage process: mechanisms of information storage and stabilization. Anim Behav 50: 393–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens IP (2002) Male-only care and classical polyandry in birds: phylogeny, ecology and sex differences in remating opportunities. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 357:283–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pai A, Yan G (2002) Polyandry produces sexy sons at the cost of daughters in red flour beetles. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:361–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panhuis TM, Butlin R, Zuk M, Tregenza T (2001) Sexual selection and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 16:364–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA (1979) Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In: Blum M, Blum N (eds) Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects. Academic Press, New York, pp 123–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GA, Partridge L (1998) Sexual conflict and speciation. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 353:261–274

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Penn DJ (2002) The scent of genetic compatibility: sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology 108:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penn DJ, Potts WK (1998a) Chemical signals and parasite-mediated sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 13:391–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penn DJ, Potts WK (1998b) MHC-disassortative mating preferences reversed by cross-fostering. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1299–1306

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Penn DJ, Potts WK (1999) The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility genes. Am Nat 153:145–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Rodríguez L (2008) Carotenoid-based ornamentation as a dynamic but consistent individual trait. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 62:995–1005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrie M, Kempenaers B (1998) Extra-pair paternity in birds: explaining variation between species and populations. Trends Ecol Evol 13:52–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfennig KS (2007) Facultative mate choice drives adaptive hybridization. Science 318:965–967

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pilastro A, Benetton S, Bisazza A (2003) Female aggregation and male competition reduce costs of sexual harassment in the mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki. Anim Behav 65:1161–1167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pillay N (2002) Father-daughter recognition and inbreeding avoidance in the striped mouse, Rhabdomys pumilio. Mammal Biol 67:212–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitnick S (1991) Male size influences mate fecundity and remating interval in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav 41:735–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitnick S, Miller GT, Reagan J, Holland B (2001) Males’ evolutionary responses to experimental removal of sexual selection. Proc R Soc Lond B 268: 1071–1080

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pizzari T (2003) Food, vigilance, and sperm: the role of male direct benefits in the evolution of female preference in a polygamous bird. Behav Ecol 14:593–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pizzari T, Birkhead TR (2000) Female feral fowl eject sperm of subdominant males. Nature 405:787–789

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Price T, Birch GL (1996) Repeated evolution of sexual color dimorphism in passerine birds. Auk 113:842–848

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryke SR, Andersson S (2002) A generalized female bias for long tails in a short-tailed widowbird. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2141–2146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qvarnström A, Pärt T, Sheldon BC (2000) Adaptive plasticity in mate preference linked to differences in reproductive effort. Nature 405:344–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Randler C (2002) Avian hybridization, mixed pairing and female choice. Anim Behav 63:103–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Real L (1990) Search theory and mate choice. I. Models of single-sex discrimination. Am Nat 136:376–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve HK, Keller L (1996) Relatedness asymmetry and reproductive sharing in animal societies. Am Nat 148:764–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve HK, Keller L (2001) Test of reproductive-skew models in social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 46:347–385

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve HK, Shen S-F (2006) A missing model in reproductive skew theory: the bordered tug-of-war. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:8430–8434

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve HK, Emlen ST, Keller L (1998) Reproductive sharing in animal societies: reproductive incentives or incomplete control by dominant breeders? Behav Ecol 9:267–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rendall D (2004) ‘Recognizing’ kin: mechanisms, media, minds, modules, and muddles. In: Chapais B, Berman C (eds) Kinship and behavior in primates. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, pp 295–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Reusch TB, Häberli MA, Aeschlimann PB, Milinski M (2001) Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature 414:300–302

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rice WR (1996) Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381:232–234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rice WR (2000) Dangerous liaisons. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:12953–12955

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts ML, Buchanan KL, Evans MR (2004) Testing the immunocompetence handicap hypothesis: a review of the evidence. Anim Behav 68:227–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson JGM (1990) Female choice increases fertilization success in the Australian frog, Uperolia laevigata. Anim Behav 39:639–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubenstein DR (2007) Stress hormones and sociality: integrating social and environmental stressors. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:967–975

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A (1992) Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 139:S4–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1993) Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47:647–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sæther SA, Sætre G-P, Borge T, Wiley C, Svedin N, Andersson G, Veen T, Haavie J, Servedio MR, Bureš S, Král M, Hjernquist MB, Gustafsson L, Träff J, Qvarnström A (2007) Sex chromosome-linked species recognition and evolution of reproductive isolation in flycatchers. Science 318:95–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sakaluk SK (2000) Sensory exploitation as an evolutionary origin to nuptial food gifts in insects. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:339–343

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saltzman W, Schultz-Darken NJ, Abbott DH (1996) Behavioural and endocrine predictors of dominance and tolerance in female common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus. Anim Behav 51:657–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauer KP, Lubjuhn T, Sindern J, Kullmann H, Kurtz J, Epplen C, Epplen JT (1998) Mating system and sexual selection in the scorpionfly Panorpa vulgaris (Mecoptera: Panorpidae). Naturwissenschaften 85:219–228

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sauter A, Brown MJ, Baer B, Schmid-Hempel P (2001) Males of social insects can prevent queens from multiple mating. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1449–1454

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG (2003) Condition dependence of a multicomponent sexual signal in the field cricket Gryllus campestris. Anim Behav 65:721–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG (2004) Female preference for multiple condition-dependent components of a sexually selected signal. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2453–2457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlupp I, Marler C, Ryan MJ (1994) Benefit to male sailfin mollies of mating with heterospecific females. Science 263:373–374

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schlupp I, Mc Knab R, Ryan MJ (2001) Sexual harassment as a cost for molly females: bigger males cost less. Behaviour 138:277–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmoll T, Dietrich V, Winkel W, Epplen JT, Lubjuhn T (2003) Long-term fitness consequences of female extra-pair matings in a socially monogamous passerine. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:259–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman PW, Reeve HK, Pfennig DW (1997) Recognition systems. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 69–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons LW (1990) Nuptial feeding in tettigonids: male costs and the rates of fecundity increase. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:43–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slagsvold T, Hansen BT, Johannessen LE, Lifjeld JT (2002) Mate choice and imprinting in birds studied by cross-fostering in the wild. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1449–1455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smadja C, Ganem G (2002) Subspecies recognition in the house mouse: a study of two populations from the border of a hybrid zone. Behav Ecol 13:312–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smuts BB, Smuts RW (1993) Male aggression and sexual coercion of females in nonhuman primates and other mammals: evidence and theoretical implications. Adv Stud Behav 22:1–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockley P (1997) Sexual conflict resulting from adaptations to sperm competition. Trends Ecol Evol 12:154–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockley P (2003) Female multiple mating behaviour, early reproductive failure and litter size variation in mammals. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:271–278

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stumpner A, von Helversen O (1994) Song production and song recognition in a group of sibling grasshopper species (Chorthippus dorsatus, Ch. dichrous and Ch. loratus: Orthoptera, Acrididae). Bioacoustics 6:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan BK (1989) Passive and active female choice: a comment. Anim Behav 37:692–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swaddle JP, Cuthill IC (1994) Preference for symmetric males by female zebra finches. Nature 367:165–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ten Cate C, Vos DR (1999) Sexual imprinting and evolutionary processes in birds: a reassessment. Adv Stud Behav 28:1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill R (1980) Rape in Panorpa scorpionflies and a general rape hypothesis. Anim Behav 28:52–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill R (1983) Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. Am Nat 122:765–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill R, Møller AP (1998) The relative importance of size and symmetry in sexual selection. Behav Ecol 9:546–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tibbetts EA, Dale J (2004) A socially enforced signal of quality in a paper wasp. Nature 432:218–222

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tregenza T, Wedell N (2000) Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol Ecol 9:1013–1027

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tregenza T, Wedell N (2002) Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415:71–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Trillmich F (1983) The mating system of the marine iguana Amblyrhynchus cristatus. Z Tierpsychol 63:141–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Uy JA, Patricelli GL, Borgia G (2000) Dynamic mate-searching tactic allows female satin bowerbirds Ptilonorhynchus violaceus to reduce searching. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:251–256

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Vedenina VY, von Helversen O (2003) Complex courtship in a bimodal grasshopper hybrid zone. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:44–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vehrencamp SL (1983) A model for the evolution of despotic versus egalitarian societies. Anim Behav 31:667–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veiga JP (2004) Replacement female house sparrows regularly commit infanticide: gaining time or signaling status? Behav Ecol 15:219–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waser PM, De Woody JA (2006) Multiple paternity in a philopatric rodent: the interaction of competition and choice. Behav Ecol 17:971–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegner KM, Kalbe M, Kurtz J, Reusch TB, Milinski M (2003) Parasite selection for immunogenetic optimality. Science 301:1343

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC (1998) Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280:1928–1930

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • West-Eberhard MJ (1983) Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q Rev Biol 58:155–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westneat DF, Walters A, McCarthy TM, Hatch MI, Hein WK (2000) Alternative mechanisms of nonindependent mate choice. Anim Behav 59:467–476

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Widemo F, Sæther SA (1999) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends Ecol Evol 14:26–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wikelski M, Carbone C, Bednekoff PA, Choudhury S, Tebbich S (2001) Why is female choice not unanimous? Insights from costly mate sampling in marine iguanas. Ethology 107:623–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund C, Karlsson B, Leimar O (2001) Sexual conflict and cooperation in butterfly reproduction: a comparative study of polyandry and female fitness. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1661–1667

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson G, Reillo P (1994) Female choice response to artificial selection on an exaggerated male trait in a stalk-eyed fly. Proc R Soc Lond B 255:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson N, Tubman SC, Eady PA, Robertson GW (1997) Female genotype affects male success in sperm competition. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1491–1495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson AB, Ahnesjö I, Vincent ACJ, Meyer A (2003) The dynamics of male brooding, mating patterns, and sex roles in pipefishes and seahorses (Family Syngnathidae). Evolution 57:1374–1386

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz P (1999) Mother species – father species: unidirectional hybridisation in animals with female choice. Anim Behav 58:1–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Witte K, Curio E (1999) Sexes of a monomorphic species differ in preference for mates with a novel trait. Behav Ecol 10:15–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witte C, Ueding K (2003) Sailfin molly females (Poecilia latipinna) copy the rejection of a male. Behav Ecol 14:389–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff JO, Macdonald DW (2004) Promiscuous females protect their offspring. Trends Ecol Evol 19:127–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Won Y-J, Sivasundar A, Wang Y, Hey J (2005) On the origin of Lake Malawi cichlid species: a population genetic analysis of divergence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:6581–6586

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yamazaki K, Boyse EA, Mike V, Thaler HT, Mathieson BJ, Abbott J, Boyse J, Zayas ZA, Thomas L (1976) Control of mating preferences in mice by genes in the major histocompatibility complex. J Exp Med 144:1324–1335

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Young AJ, Carlson AA, Monfort SL, Russell AF, Bennett NC, Clutton-Brock TH (2006) Stress and the suppression of subordinate reproduction in cooperatively breeding meerkats. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:12005–12010

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection – a selection for handicap. J theoret Biol 53: 205–214

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zala SM, Potts WK, Penn DJ (2004) Scent-marking displays provide honest signals of health and infection. Behav Ecol 15:338–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeh JA, Zeh DW (2003) Toward a new sexual selection paradigm: polyandry, conflict and incompatibility. Ethology 109:929–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2009). Intersexuelle Selektion: was Weibchen wollen. In: Verhaltensbiologie. Springer-Lehrbuch. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68792-4_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation