Advertisement

Intersexuelle Selektion: was Weibchen wollen

Part of the Springer-Lehrbuch book series (SLB)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Able DJ (1996) The contagion indicator hypothesis for parasite-mediated sexual selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:2229–2233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 54:119–126Google Scholar
  3. Alberts SA (1999) Paternal kin discrimination in wild baboons. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:1501–1506Google Scholar
  4. Altmann J (1990) Primate males go where the females are. Anim Behav 39:193–195Google Scholar
  5. Amundsen T (2000) Why are female birds ornamented? Trends Ecol Evol 15:149–155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Amundsen T, Forsgren E (2001) Male mate choice selects for female coloration in a fish. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:13155–13160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Amundsen T, Forsgren E, Hansen LTT (1997) On the function of female ornaments: male bluethroats prefer colourful females. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1579–1586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Andersson M (1982) Female choice selects for extreme tail length in a widowbird. Nature 299:818–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 267:1271–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Arnqvist G (1998) Comparative evidence for the evolution of genitalia by sexual selection. Nature 393:784–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Arnqvist G (2004) Sexual conflict and sexual selection: lost in the chase. Evolution 58:1383–1388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T (2000) The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav 60:145–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Arnqvist G, Rowe L (2002) Antagonistic coevolution between the sexes in a group of insects. Nature 415:787–789PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Arnqvist G, Edvardsson M, Friberg U, Nilsson T (2000) Sexual conflict promotes speciation in insects. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:10460–10464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Arnqvist G, Jones TM, Elgar MA (2003) Insect behaviour: reversal of sex roles in nuptial feeding. Nature 424:387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bakker TCM (1993) Positive genetic correlation between female preference and preferred male ornament in sticklebacks. Nature 363:255–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bakker TCM, Pomiankowski A (1995) The genetic basis of female mate preferences. J Evol Biol 8:129–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 268:71–76Google Scholar
  19. Barraclough TG, Harvey PH, Nee S (1995) Sexual selection and taxonomic diversity in passerine birds. Proc R Soc Lond B 259:211–215Google Scholar
  20. Basolo AL (1990) Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science 250:808–810PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Beecher MD (1991) Successes and failures of parent-offspring recognition in animals. In: Hepper PG (ed) Kin Recognition. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, pp 94–127Google Scholar
  22. Berger L (1973) Systematics and hybridization in European green frog s of the Rana esculenta complex. J Herpetol 7:1–10Google Scholar
  23. Birkhead TR, Pizzari T (2002) Postcopulatory sexual selection. Nat Rev Genet 3:262–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 13:353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 419:613–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Blows MW (2002) Interaction between natural and sexual selection during the evolution of mate recognition. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1113–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Boughman JW (2001) Divergent sexual selection enhances reproductive isolation in sticklebacks. Nature 411:944–948PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Briggs SE, Godin JGJ, Dugatkin LA (1996) Mate-choice copying under predation risk in the Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Behav Ecol 7:151–157Google Scholar
  29. Brooks R (2000) Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival. Nature 406:67–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Buchanan KL, Catchpole CK (2000) Song as an indicator of male parental effort in the sedge warbler. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 270:1149–1156Google Scholar
  32. Burley N (1986) Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care. Am Nat 127:415–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Bussière LF, Basit HA, Gwynne DT (2005) Preferred males are not always good providers: female choice and male investment in tree crickets. Behav Ecol 16:223–231Google Scholar
  34. Candolin U (2003) The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biol Rev 78:575–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Candolin U, Reynolds JD (2001) Sexual signaling in the European bitterling: females learn the truth by direct inspection of the resource. Behav Ecol 12:407–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Catchpole CK (1987) Bird song, sexual selection and female choice. Trends Ecol Evol 2:94–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Cate C ten, Vos DR (1999) Sexual imprinting and evolutionary processes in birds: a reassessment. Adv Stud Behav 28:1–31Google Scholar
  38. 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 373:241–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Chapman T, Arnqvist G, Bangham J, Rowe L (2003) Sexual conflict. Trends Ecol Evol 18:41–47Google Scholar
  40. 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 98:1671–1675PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 268:899–909Google Scholar
  42. Clutton-Brock TH (1989) Female transfer and inbreeding avoidance in social mammals. Nature 337:70–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Clutton-Brock TH (1998) Reproductive skew, concessions and limited control. Trends Ecol Evol 13:288–292Google Scholar
  44. Clutton-Brock TH (2002) Breeding together: kin selection and mutualism in cooperative vertebrates. Science 296:69–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 72:189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Cooley JR, Marshall DC (2004) Threshold or comparisons: mate choice criteria and sexual selection in a periodical cicada, Magicicada septendecim (Hemiptera: Cicadidae). Behaviour 141:647–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Cooney R, Bennett NC (2000) Inbreeding avoidance and reproductive skew in a cooperative mammal. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:801–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Cordero C, Eberhard WG (2003) Female choice of sexually antagonistic male adaptations: a critical review of some current research. J Evol Biol 16:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Creel SR, Macdonald DW (1995) Sociality, group size, and reproductive suppression among carnivores. Adv Stud Behav 24:203–257Google Scholar
  50. Crudgington HS, Siva-Jothy MT (2000) Genital damage, kicking and early death. Nature 407:855–856PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Cunningham EJA, Birkhead TR (1998) Sex roles and sexual selection. Anim Behav 56:1311–1322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Cunningham EJA, Russell AF (2000) Egg investment is influenced by male attractiveness in the mallard. Nature 404:74–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Darwin C (1871) The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. David P, Bjorksten T, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A (2000) Condition-dependent signalling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature 406:186–188PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 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 11–20Google Scholar
  56. 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 51:27–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Digby L (1995) Infant care, infanticide, and female reproductive strategies in polygynous groups of common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 37:51–61Google Scholar
  58. Domb LG, Pagel M (2001) Sexual swellings advertise female quality in wild baboons. Nature 410:204–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Double M, Cockburn A (2000) Pre-dawn infidelity: females control extra-pair mating in superb fairy-wrens. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:465–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Duarte LC, Bouteiller C, Fontanillas IP, Petit E, Perrin N (2003) Inbreeding in the greater white-toothed shrew, Crocidura russula. Evolution 57:638–645PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Dugatkin LA (1992) Sexual selection and imitation: females copy the mate choice of others. Am Nat 139:1384–1389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Dugatkin LA, Godin JG (1992) Reversal of female mate choice by copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proc R Soc Lond B 249:179–184Google Scholar
  63. 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 270:1247–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Eberhard WG (1985) Sexual Selection and Animal Genitalia. Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge/MAGoogle Scholar
  65. Eberhard WG (1990) Animal genitalia and female choice. AmSci 78:134–141Google Scholar
  66. Eberhard WG (1996) Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton Univ Press, Princeton/NJGoogle Scholar
  67. Eberle M, Kappeler PM (2004) Selected polyandry: female choice and intersexual conflict in a small nocturnal solitary primate (Microcebus murinus). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 57:91–100Google Scholar
  68. Edvardsson M, Tregenza T (2005) Why do male Callosobruchus maculatus harm their mates? Behav Ecol 16:788–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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 102:6550–6557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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 12:600–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Engqvist L, Sauer KP (2001) Strategic male mating effort and cryptic male choice in a scorpionfly. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:729–735Google Scholar
  72. Evans JP, Zane L, Francescato S, Pilastro A (2003) Directional postcopulatory sexual selection revealed by artificial insemination. Nature 421:360–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Fatouros NE, Huigens ME, van Loon JJA, Dicker M, Hilker M (2005) Butterfly anti-aphrodisiac lures parasitic wasps. Nature 433:704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Fedorka KM, Mousseau TA (2002) Material and genetic benefits of female multiple mating and polyandry. Anim Behav 64:361–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Fischer J, Kitchen DM, Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL (2004) Baboon loud calls advertise male quality: acoustic features and their relation to rank, age, and exhaustion. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 56:140–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Fisher RA (1930) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  77. Foerster K, Delhey K, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT, Kempenaers B (2003) Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings. Nature 425:714–717PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Folstad I, Karter AJ (1992) Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. Am Nat 139:603–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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 269:1479–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Fox EA (2002) Female tactics to reduce sexual harassment in the Sumatran orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus abelii). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 52:93–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Fox CW, Rauter CM (2003) Bet-hedging and the evolution of multiple mating. Evol Ecol Res 5:273–286Google Scholar
  82. Gavrilets S, Arnqvist G, Friberg U (2001) The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:531–539Google Scholar
  83. Gibson RM, Langen TA (1996) How do animals choose their mates? Trends Ecol Evol 11:468–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Gil D, Gahr M (2002) The honesty of bird song: multiple constraints for multiple traits. Trends Ecol Evol 17:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. González A, Rossini C, Eisner M, Eisner T (1999) Sexually transmitted chemical defense in a moth (Utetheisa ornatrix). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:5570–5574PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Grafe TU (1997) Costs and benefits of male choice in the lek-breeding reed frog, Hyperolius marmoratus. Anim Behav 53:1103–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Grafen A (1990) Biological signals as handicaps. J theoret Biol 144:517–546Google Scholar
  88. Greeff JM, Parker GA (2000) Spermicide by females: what should males do? Proc R Soc Lond B 267:1759–1763Google Scholar
  89. Greenwood PJ (1980) Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Anim Behav 28:1140–1162Google Scholar
  90. Grosberg RK, Quinn JF (1986) The genetic control and consequences of kin recognition by the larvae of a colonial marine invertebrate. Nature 322:456–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Hackländer K, Möstl E, Arnold W (2003) Reproductive suppression in female Alpine marmots, Marmota marmota. Anim Behav 65:1133–1140Google Scholar
  92. Halliday T, Arnold SJ (1987) Multiple mating be females: a perspective from quantitative genetics. Anim Behav 35:939–941Google Scholar
  93. Hamilton WD, Zuk M (1982) Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218:384–387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Hamilton WD, Axelrod R, Tanese R (1990) Sexual reproduction as an adaptation to resist parasites (a review). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 87:3566–3573PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Hankison SJ, Morris MR (2003) Avoiding a compromise between sexual selection and species recognition: female swordtail fish assess m ultiple species-specific cues. Behav Ecol 14:282–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Hauber ME, Sherman PW (2001) Self-referent phenotype matching: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Trends Neurosci 24:609–616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Heinze J, Keller L (2000) Alternative reproductive strategies: a queen perspective in ants. Trends Ecol Evol 15:508–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Higgie M, Chenoweth S, Blows MW (2000) Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science 290:519–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Holland B, Rice WR (1998) Chase-away sexual selection: antagonistic seduction versus resistance. Evolution 52:1–7Google Scholar
  100. Holland B, Rice WR (1999) Experimental removal of sexual selection reverses intersexual antagonistic coevolution and removes a reproductive load. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:5083–5088PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Immelmann K (1972) Sexual and other long-term aspects of imprinting in birds and other species. Adv Stud Behav 4:147–174Google Scholar
  102. Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A, Nee S (1991) The evolution of costly mate preferences: the handicap principle. Evolution 45:1431–1442Google Scholar
  103. Janetos AC (1980) Strategies of female mate choice: a theoretical analysis. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 7:107–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Jennions MD, Petrie M (1997) Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences. Biol Rev 72:283–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Jennions MD, Petrie M (2000) Why do females mate multiply? A review of the genetic benefits. Biol Rev 75:21–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Jiggins CD, Mallet J (2000) Bimodal hybrid zones and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 15:250–255PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. Johnsen A, Andersen V, Sunding C, Lifjeld JT (2000) Female bluethroats enhance offspring immunocompetence through extra-pair copulations. Nature 406:296–299PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. Johnstone RA (2000) Models of reproductive skew: a review and synthesis. Ethology 106:5–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Johnstone RA, Cant MA (1999a) Concessions versus restraint models of reproductive skew. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:275–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Johnstone RA, Cant MA (1999) Reproductive skew and the threat of eviction: a new perspective. Proc R Soc Lond B 266:275–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Johnstone RA, Cant MA (2000) Power struggles, dominance testing, and reproductive skew. Am Nat 155:406–417PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Johnstone RA, Keller L (2000) How males can gain by harming their mates: sexual conflict, seminal toxins, and the cost of mating. Am Nat 156:368–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Jones IL, Hunter FM (1999) Experimental evidence for mutual inter-and intrasexual selection favouring a crested auklet ornament. Anim Behav 57:521–528PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 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 268:2531–2535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 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 54:423–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Keller L, Fournier D (2002) Lack of inbreeding avoidance in the A rgentine ant Linepithema humile. Behav Ecol 13:28–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Keller L, Nonacs P (1993) The role of queen pheromones in social insects: queen control or queen signal? Anim Behav 45:787–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Keller L, Reeve HK (1994) Partitioning of reproduction in animal societies. Trends Ecol Evol 9:98–102Google Scholar
  119. Keller L, Waller DM (2002) Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol Evol 17:230–241Google Scholar
  120. Kempenaers B, Verheyen GR, Dhondt AA (1997) Extrapair paternity in the blue tit (Parus caeruleus): female choice, male characteristics, and offspring quality. Behav Ecol 8:481–492Google Scholar
  121. Keyser AJ, Hill GE (2000) Structurally based plumage coloration is an honest signal of male quality in male blue grosbeaks. Behav Ecol 11:202–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Kilner RM, Noble DG, Davies NB (1999). Signals of need in parent-offspring communication and their exploitation by the common cuckoo. Nature 397:667–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Kirkpatrick M, Ryan MJ (1991) The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature 350:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Koene JM, Schulenburg H (2005) Shooting darts: co-evolution and counter-adaptation in hermaphroditic snails. BMC Evol Biol 5:25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Kokko H (2001) Fisherian and ‘good genes’ benefits of mate choice: how (not) to distinguish between them. Ecol Lett 4:322–326Google Scholar
  126. Kokko H, Brooks R, McNamara JM, Houston AI (2002) The sexual selection continuum. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1331–1340Google Scholar
  127. Kothiaho JS, Simmons LW, Tomkins JL (2001) Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410:684–686Google Scholar
  128. Künzler R, Bakker TCM (2000) Pectoral fins and paternal quality in sticklebacks. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:999–1004Google Scholar
  129. Lande R (1980) Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34:292–305Google Scholar
  130. Langmore NE, Cockrem JF, Candy EJ (2002) Competition for male reproductive investment elevates testosterone levels in female dunnocks, Prunella modularis. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2473–2478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Lehmann L, Perrin N (2003) Inbreeding avoidance through kin recognition: choosy females boost male dispersal. Am Nat 162:638–652PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 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 121–208Google Scholar
  133. Lorenz K (1941) Vergleichende Bewegungsstudien an Anatiden. J Ornithol 89:194–293Google Scholar
  134. Lubjuhn T, Strohbach S, Brün J, Gerken T, Epplen JT (1999) Extra-pair paternity in great tits (Parus major)-a long term study. Behaviour 136:1157–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 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 271:2445–2452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Markow TA (1997) Assortative fertilizations in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:7756–7760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Martin OY, Hosken DJ (2003) The evolution of reproductive isolation through sexual conflict. Nature 423:979–982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. Mateo JM (2003) Kin recognition in ground squirrels and other rodents. J Mammal 84:1163–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Mateo JM, Johnston RE (2000) Kin recognition and the ‘armpit effect’: evidence of self-referent phenotype matching. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:695–700Google Scholar
  140. Mays HL Jr, Hill GE (2004) Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends Ecol Evol 19:554–559PubMedGoogle Scholar
  141. McComb KE (1991) Female choice for high roaring rates in red deer, Cervus elaphus. Anim Behav 41:79–88Google Scholar
  142. McKinney F, Derrickson SR, Mineau P (1983) Forced copulation in waterfowl. Behaviour 86:250–294Google Scholar
  143. Mendelson TC, Shaw KL (2005) Rapid speciation in an arthropod. Nature 433:375–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Michiels NK, Newman LJ (1998) Sex and violence in hermaphrodites. Nature 391:647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Milinski M, Bakker TCM (1990) Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature 344:330–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Milinski M, Bakker TCM (1992) Costs influence sequential mate choice in sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Proc R Soc Lond B 250:229–233Google Scholar
  147. 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 102:4414–4416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Miller GT, Pitnick S (2002) Sperm-female coevolution in Drosophila. Science 298:1230–1233PubMedGoogle Scholar
  149. Møller AP (1992) Female swallow preference for symmetrical male sexual ornaments. Nature 357:238–240PubMedGoogle Scholar
  150. Møller AP, Cuervo JJ (1998) Speciation and feather ornamentation in birds. Evolution 52:859–869Google Scholar
  151. Møller AP, Jennions MD (2001) How important are direct fitness benefits of sexual selection? Naturwissenschaften 88:401–415PubMedGoogle Scholar
  152. Møller AP, Pomiankowski A (1993) Why have birds got multiple sexual ornaments? Behav Ecol Sociobiol 32:167–176Google Scholar
  153. Morrow EH, Arnqvist G, Pitnick S (2003) Adaptation versus pleiotropy: why do males harm their mates? Behav Ecol 14:802–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Oetting S, Pröve E, Bischof H-J (1995) Sexual imprinting as a two-stage process: mechanisms of information storage and stabilization. Anim Behav 50:393–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Ostner J, Kappeler PM (2004) Male life history and the unusual adult sex ratios of redfronted lemur, Eulemur fulvus rufus, groups. Anim Behav 67:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 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 357:283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. Pai A, Yan G (2002) Polyandr y produces sexy sons at the cost of daughters in red flour beetles. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:361–368Google Scholar
  158. Panhuis TM, Butlin R, Zuk M, Tregenza T (2001) Sexual selection and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol 16:364–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 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 123–166Google Scholar
  160. Parker GA, Partridge L (1998) Sexual conflict and speciation. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 353:261–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. Penn DJ (2002) The scent of genetic compatibility: sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology 108:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Penn DJ, Potts WK (1998a) Chemical signals and parasite-mediated sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 13:391–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Penn DJ, Potts WK (1998b) MHC-disassortative mating preferences reversed by cross-fostering. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1299–1306Google Scholar
  164. Penn DJ, Potts WK (1999) The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility genes. Am Nat 153:145–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. Petrie M, Kempenaers B (1998) Extra-pair paternity in birds: explaining variation between species and populations. Trends Ecol Evol 13:52–58Google Scholar
  166. Pilastro A, Benetton S, Bisazza A (2003) Female aggregation and male competition reduce costs of sexual harassment in the mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki. Anim Behav 65:1161–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. Pillay N (2002) Father-daughter recognition and inbreeding avoidance in the striped mouse, Rhabdomys pumilio. Mammal Biol 67:212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. Pitnick S (1991) Male size influences mate fecundity and remating interval in Drosophila melanogaster. Anim Behav 41:735–745Google Scholar
  169. Pitnick S, Miller GT, Reagan J, Holland B (2001) Males’ evolutionary responses to experimental removal of sexual selection. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1071–1080Google Scholar
  170. 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 14:593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Pizzari T, Birkhead TR (2000) Female feral fowl eject sperm of subdominant males. Nature 405:787–789PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. Price T, Birch GL (1996) Repeated evolution of sexual color dimorphism in passerine birds. Auk 113:842–848Google Scholar
  173. Pryke SR, Andersson S (2002) A generalized female bias for long tails in a shorttailed widowbird. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:2141–2146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Queiroz K de (2005) Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:6600–6607PubMedGoogle Scholar
  175. Qvarnström A, Pärt T, Sheldon BC (2000) Adaptive plasticity in mate preference linked to differences in reproductive effort. Nature 405:344–347PubMedGoogle Scholar
  176. Randler C (2002) Avian hybridization, mixed pairing and female choice. Anim Behav 63:103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Real L (1990) Search theory and mate choice. I. Models of single-sex discrimination. Am Nat 136:376–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Reeve HK, Keller L (1996) Relatedness asymmetry and reproductive sharing in animal societies. Am Nat 148:764–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Reeve HK, Keller L (2001) Test of reproductive-skew models in social insects. Annu Rev Entomol 46:347–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. Reeve HK, Emlen ST, Keller L (1998) Reproductive sharing in animal societies: reproductive incentives or incomplete control by dominant breeders? Behav Ecol 9:267–278Google Scholar
  181. 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 295–316Google Scholar
  182. Reusch TB, Häberli MA, Aeschlimann PB, Milinski M (2001) Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature 414:300–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. Rice WR (1996) Sexually antagonistic male adaptation triggered by experimental arrest of female evolution. Nature 381:232–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Rice WR (2000) Dangerous liaisons. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:12953–12955PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. Roberts ML, Buchanan KL, Evans MR (2004) Testing the immunocom petence handicap hypothesis: a review of the evidence. Anim Behav 68:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. Robertson JGM (1990) Female choice increases fertilization success in the Australian frog, Uperolia laevigata. Anim Behav 39:639–645Google Scholar
  187. Ryan MJ, Keddy-Hector A (1992) Directional patterns of female mate choice and the role of sensory biases. Am Nat 139:S4–35Google Scholar
  188. Ryan MJ, Rand AS (1993) Species recognition and sexual selection as a unitary problem in animal communication. Evolution 47:647–657Google Scholar
  189. Sakaluk SK (2000) Sensory exploitation as an evolutionary origin to nuptial food gifts in insects. Proc R Soc Lond B 267:339–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. Saltzman W, Schultz-Darken NJ, Abbott DH (1996) Behavioural and endocrine predictors of dominance and tolerance in female common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus. Anim Behav 51:657–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. 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 85:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. 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 268:1449–1454Google Scholar
  193. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG (2003) Condition dependence of a multicomponent sexual signal in the field cricket Gryllus campestris. Anim Behav 65:721–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. Scheuber H, Jacot A, Brinkhof MWG (2004) Female preference for multiple condition-dependent components of a sexually selected signal. Proc R Soc Lond B 271:2453–2457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. Schlupp I, Marler C, Ryan MJ (1994) Benefit to male sailfin mollies of mating with heterospecific females. Science 263:373–374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  196. Schlupp I, Mc Knab R, Ryan MJ (2001) Sexual harassment as a cost for molly females: bigger males cost less. Behaviour 138:277–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. 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 270:259–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. Seehausen O, van Alphen JJM (1999) Can sympatric speciation by disruptive sexual selection explain rapid evolution of cichlid diversity in Lake Victoria? Ecol Lett 2:262–271Google Scholar
  199. Sherman PW, Reeve HK, Pfennig DW (1997) Recognition systems. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural Ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 69–96Google Scholar
  200. Simmons LW (1990) Nuptial feeding in tettigonids: male costs and the rates of fecundity increase. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 27:43–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. 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 269:1449–1455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. 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 13:312–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. 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 22:1–63Google Scholar
  204. Snowdon CT (1996) Infant care in cooperatively breeding species. Adv Stud Behav 25:643–689Google Scholar
  205. Stockley P (1997) Sexual conflict resulting from adaptations to sperm competition. Trends Ecol Evol 12:154–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. Stockley P (2003) Female multiple mating behaviour, early reproductive failure and litter size variation in mammals. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:271–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. Stumpner A, von Helversen O (1994) group of sibling grasshopper species (Chorthippus dorsatus, Ch. dichrous and Ch. loratus: Orthoptera, Acrididae). Bioacoustics 6:1–23Google Scholar
  208. Sullivan BK (1989) Passive and active female choice: a comment. Anim Behav 37:692–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. Swaddle JP, Cuthill IC (1994) Preference for symmetric males by female zebra finches. Nature 367:165–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. Thornhill R (1980) Rape in Panorpa scorpionflies and a general rape hypothesis. Anim Behav 28:52–59Google Scholar
  211. Thornhill R (1983) Cryptic female choice and its implications in the scorpionfly Harpobittacus nigriceps. Am Nat 122:765–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. Thornhill R, Møller AP (1998) The relative importance of size and symmetry in sexual selection. Behav Ecol 9:546–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. Tibbetts EA, Dale J (2004) A socially enforced signal of quality in a paper wasp. Nature 432:218–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2000) Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol Ecol 9:1013–1027PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2002) Polyandrous females avoid costs of inbreeding. Nature 415:71–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  216. Trillmich F (1983) The mating system of the marine iguana Amblyrhynchus cristatus. Z Tierpsychol 63:141–172Google Scholar
  217. 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 267:251–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  218. Vedenina VY, von Helversen O (2003) Complex courtship in a bimodal grasshopper hybrid zone. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 54:44–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  219. Vehrencamp SL (1983) A model for the evolution of despotic versus egalitarian societies. Anim Behav 31:667–682Google Scholar
  220. Wegner KM, Kalbe M, Kurtz J, Reusch TB, Milinski M (2003) Parasite selection for immunogenetic optimality. Science 301:1343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  221. Welch AM, Semlitsch RD, Gerhardt HC (1998) Call duration as an indicator of genetic quality in male gray tree frogs. Science 280:1928–1930PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  222. West-Eberhard MJ (1983) Sexual selection, social competition, and speciation. Q Rev Biol 58:155–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  223. Westneat DF, Walters A, McCarthy TM, Hatch MI, Hein WK (2000) Alternative mechanisms of nonindependent mate choice. Anim Behav 59:467–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  224. Widemo F, Saether SA (1999) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends Ecol Evol 14:26–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  225. 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 107:623–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  226. 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 268:1661–1667Google Scholar
  227. 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 255:1–6Google Scholar
  228. Wilson N, Tubman SC, Eady PA, Robertson GW (1997) Female genotype affects male success in sperm competition. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1491–1495Google Scholar
  229. Wilson AB, Ahnesjö I, Vincent ACJ, Meyer A (2003) The dynam ics of male brooding, mating patterns, and sex roles in pipefishes and seahorses (Family Syngnathidae). Evolution 57:1374–1386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  230. Wirtz P (1999) Mother species-father species: unidirectional hybridisation in animals with female choice. Anim Behav 58:1–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  231. Witte K, Curio E (1999) Sexes of a monomorphic species differ in preference for mates with a novel trait. Behav Ecol 10:15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  232. Witte C, Ueding K (2003) Sailfin molly females (Poecilia latipinna) copy the rejection of a male. Behav Ecol 14:389–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  233. Wolff JO, Macdonald DW (2004) Promiscuous females protect their offspring. Trends Ecol Evol 19:127–134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  234. 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 102:6581–6586PubMedGoogle Scholar
  235. 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 144:1324–1335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  236. Zahavi A (1975)Mate selection-a selection for handicap. J theoret Biol 53:205–214Google Scholar
  237. Zala SM, Potts WK, Penn DJ (2004) Scent-marking displays provide honest signals of health and infection. Behav Ecol 15:338–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  238. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (2001) Reproductive mode and the genetic benefits of polyandry. Anim Behav 61:1051–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  239. Zeh JA, Zeh DW (2003) Toward a new sexual selection paradigm: polyandry, conflict and incompatibility. Ethology 109:929–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  240. Zinner D, Alberts S, Nunn CL, Altmann J (2002) Significance of primate sexual swellings. Nature 420:142–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Personalised recommendations