Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 167–176 | Cite as

Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments?

  • A.P. Moller
  • A. Pomiankowski


Males of many animals have more than a single exaggerated secondary sexual character, but inter-specific variability in the number of ornaments has never been explained. We examine three hypotheses that may account for the presence of multiple ornaments. First, the multiple message hypothesis proposes that each display reflects a single property of the overall quality of an animal. This is likely to be the case for ornaments that respond to condition on different time scales. Second, the redundant signal hypothesis suggests that each ornament gives a partial indication of condition. Females pay attention to several sex traits because in combination they provide a better estimate of general condition than does any single ornament. The redundant signal hypothesis predicts that (i) multiple ornaments should be particularly common among taxa with relatively uncostly and fine-tuned female choice, and (ii) females pay equal attention to the expression of all the secondary sex traits in order to obtain an estimate of overall male condition. Finally, the unreliable signal hypothesis argues that some ornaments are unreliable indicators of overall condition and are only maintained because they are relatively uncostly to produce and there is a weak female preference for them. This predicts that (i) multiple sexual ornaments should be particularly common in taxa with the most intense sexual selection (i.e. lekking and other polygynous taxa), and (ii) there should be more evidence for condition dependence in ornaments of species with single as opposed to multiple ornaments. Both the latter predictions are supported by data on feather ornaments in birds.


Female Choice Female Preference Sexual Character Signal Hypothesis Partial Indication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersson M (1980) Why are there so many threat displays? J Theor Biol 86:773–781Google Scholar
  2. Andersson M (1986) Evolution of condition-dependent sex ornaments and mating preferences: sexual selection based on viability differences. Evolution 40:804–820Google Scholar
  3. Clarke JM, McKenzie JA (1987) Developmental stability of insecticide resistant phenotypes in blowfly; a result of canalizing natural selection. Nature 325:345–346Google Scholar
  4. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Evans MR, Hatchwell BJ (1992) An experimental study of male adornment in the scarlet-tufted malachite sunbird. I. The role of pectoral tufts in territorial. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 29:413–419Google Scholar
  6. Evans MR, Thomas ALR (1992) The aerodynamic and mechanical consequences of elongated tails in the scarlet tufted malachite sunbird: Measuring the cost of a handicap. Anim Behav 43:337–347Google Scholar
  7. Fisher RA (1930) The genetical theory of natural selection. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Grafen A (1990) Sexual selection unhandicapped by the Fisher process. J Theor Biol 44:475–516Google Scholar
  9. Hamilton WD (1986) Instability and cycling of two competing hosts with two parasites. In: Karlin S, Nevo A (eds) Evolutionary processes and theory. Academic Press, New York, pp 645–668Google Scholar
  10. Harvey P, Pagel M (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Hedrick AV (1988) Female choice and the heritability of attractive male traits: an empirical study. Am Nat 132:267–276PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Höglund J (1989) Size and plumage dimorphism in lek-breeding birds: a comparative analysis. Am Nat 134:72–87Google Scholar
  13. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A, Nee S (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The “handicap” principle. Evolution 45:1431–1442Google Scholar
  14. Kirkpatrick M (1982) Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice. Evolution 36:1–12Google Scholar
  15. Kirkpatrick M (1987) The evolutionary forces acting on female mating preferences in polygynous animals. In: Bradbury J, Andersson MB (eds) Sexual selection: testing the alterantives. Wiley, Chichester, pp 67–82Google Scholar
  16. Kodric-Brown A (1989) Dietary carotenoids and male mating success in the guppy: an environmental component to female choice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:393–401Google Scholar
  17. Kodric-Brown A, Brown JH (1984) Truth in advertising: the kinds of traits favored by sexual selection. Am Nat 124:303–323Google Scholar
  18. Lande R (1981) Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:3721–3725Google Scholar
  19. Leamy L, Atchley W (1985) Directional selection and developmental stability: Evidence from fluctuating asymmetry of morphometric characters in rats. Growth 49:8–18Google Scholar
  20. Ludwig W (1932) Das Rechts-Links-Problem im Tierreich und beim Menschen. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  21. Milinski M, Bakker TCM (1990) Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature 344:330–332Google Scholar
  22. Møller AP (1990) Fluctuating asymmetry in male sexual ornaments may reliably reveal male quality. Anim Behav 40:1185–1187Google Scholar
  23. Møller AP (1991) Sexual ornaments size and the cost of fluctuating asymmetry. Proc Roy Soc London B 243:59–62Google Scholar
  24. Møller AP (1992a) Frequency of female copulations with multiple males and sexual selection. Am Nat 139:1089–1101Google Scholar
  25. Møller AP (1992b) Female swallow preference for symmetric male sexual ornaments. Nature 357:238–240Google Scholar
  26. Møller AP (1993) Patterns of fluctuating asymmetry in sexual ornaments predict female choice. J Evol Biol (in press)Google Scholar
  27. Moller AP, Höglund J (1991) Patterns of fluctuating asymmetry in avian feather ornaments: implications for models of sexual selection. Proc R Soc London B 245:1–5Google Scholar
  28. Møller AP, Pomiankowski A (1993a) Punctuated equilibria or gradual evolution: Fluctuating asymmetry and variation in the rate of evolution. J Theor Biol (in press)Google Scholar
  29. Møller AP, Pomiankowski A (1993b) Fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection. Genetica (in press)Google Scholar
  30. Palmer AR, Strobeck C (1986) Fluctuating asymmetry: measurement, analysis, pattern. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:391–421Google Scholar
  31. Parsons PA (1990) Fluctuating asymmetry: an epigenetic measure of stress. Biol Rev 65:131–145Google Scholar
  32. Pomiankowski A (1987) The costs of choice in sexual selection. J Theor Biol 128, 195–218Google Scholar
  33. Pomiankowski A, Iwasa Y, Nee S (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences. I. Fisher and biased mutation. Evolution 45:1422–1430Google Scholar
  34. Sebeok TA (1977) How animals communicate. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  35. Silbley CG, Ahlquist JE (1990) Phylogeny and classification of birds. Yale University Press, New Haven LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Soulé ME (1982) Allometric variation. 1. The theory and some consequences. Am Nat 120:751–764Google Scholar
  37. Taylor PD, Williams GC (1982) The lek paradox is not resolved. Theor Popul Biol 22:392–409Google Scholar
  38. Thoday JM (1958) Homeostasis in a selection experiment. Heredity 12:401–415Google Scholar
  39. Thomas ALR (1992) On the aerodynamics of bird tails. Phil Trans R Soc B (in press)Google Scholar
  40. Tinbergen N (1959) Comparative studies of the behaviour of gulls (Laridae): a progress report. Behavior 15:1–70Google Scholar
  41. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  42. Van Valen L (1962) A study of fluctuating asymmetry. Evolution 16:125–142Google Scholar
  43. Zahavi A (1975) Mate selection — a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol 53:205–214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Zuk M, Thornhill R, Ligon JD (1990) Parasites and mate choice in red jungle fowl. Am Zool 30:235–244Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • A.P. Moller
    • 1
  • A. Pomiankowski
    • 1
  1. 1.The Galton Laboratory, Department of Genetics and BiometryUniversity College of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations