Skip to main content
Log in

Continuity and versatility in bird song: support for the monotony–threshold hypothesis

  • Letter
  • Published:

From Nature

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Abstract

HARTSHORNE1,2 has proposed that a direct relationship exists between the degree of continuity and versatility in bird song. In other words, the more continuously a bird species sings (that is, the longer the song lengths relative to pauses between songs), the higher is the probability that successive songs will be different. Birds of a given species may sing with immediate variety, where successive songs are different, whereas other species tend to sing with eventual variety, where a song type is repeated many times before another is introduced; males of some species have only a single song type, and thus show a lack of variety in their singing. Hartshorne proposed that a monotony threshold exists, making singing behaviours with high continuity and low versatility too monotonous and therefore ineffective. Because Hartshorne collected information primarily by ear, his data on singing behaviours were not always accurate3; also, his philosophical approach to the aesthetics of bird song remains incompatible with the more rigorous approaches used by most biologists. His hypothesis has been further discredited by a report4 which, through quantitative analyses of data compiled for 39 species, found no significant correlation (rs = 0.20) between versatility and continuity of singing. However, because Dobson and Lemon4 used repertoire size as the measure of versatility, Hartshorne's monotony–threshold hypothesis was not actually tested, for his1,2 measure of versatility involved the sequential organisation of different songs during a singing session, not merely the total repertoire size. This is an important distinction, as Hartshorn5,23 stresses, for a species such as the Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) may have a large repertoire size but sing a song type 100 times before changing to another. Hartshorne considers such song patterning to be non-versatile5,23, whereas Dobson and Lemon rank this species as highly versatile. The purpose of this report, then, is threefold. First, because of these differences in the definition of versatility, I test Hartshorne's monotony–threshold hypothesis, using the original and some revised (see Table 1) data tabulated by Dobson and Lemon4. Second, I discuss the difficulties involved in measuring continuity and versatility among species with very different singing behaviours. Finally, I review data from wrens (Troglodytidae) which reveal a clear relationship between several different and, I feel, improved measures of continuity and versatility.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hartshorne, C. Auk 73, 176–192 (1956).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hartshorne, C. Born to Sing (Indiana University Press, Ploomington, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Verner, J. The Living Bird 14, 263–300 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dobson, C. W. & Lemon, R. E. Nature 257, 126–128 (1975).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hartshorne, C. Auk 73, 177 (1956).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kroodsma, D. E. Am. Nat. 11, 995–1008 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kroodsma, D. E. Condor 77, 294–303 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kroodsma, D. E. & Verner, J. The Auk (in the press).

  9. Petrinovich, L. & Peeke, H. V. S. Behav. Biol. 8, 743–748 (1973).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Krebs, J. R. Anim. Behav. 25, 475–478 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Howard, R. D. Evolution 28, 428–438 (1974).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kroodsma, D. E. Science 192, 574–575 (1976).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Nottebohm, F. Am. Nat. 106, 116–140 (1972).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Reynard, G. B. Living Bird 2, 139–148 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stein, R. C. Auk 73, 507–512 (1956).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Borror, D. J. Ohio J. Sci. 64, 195–207 (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kroodsma, D. E. Z. Tierpsychol. 35, 352–380 (1974).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fish, W. R. Condor 55, 250–257 (1953).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Marler, P. & Isaac, D. Condor 62, 272–283 (1960).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Marler, P. & Isaac, D. Auk 77, 433–444 (1960).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mulligan, J. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 81, 1–76 (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mulligan, J. A. Proc. 12th int. Orn. Congr. 272–284 (1963).

  23. Hartshorne, C. Born to Sing, 120 (Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

KROODSMA, D. Continuity and versatility in bird song: support for the monotony–threshold hypothesis. Nature 274, 681–683 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1038/274681a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/274681a0

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Navigation