Advertisement

Playback: A Historical Perspective

  • J. Bruce Falls
Chapter
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 228)

Abstract

We are here to re-evaluate a technique that has been very productive in the study of animal communication. So in a sense this is a celebration of success. I have been asked to provide a historical overview and, as I look around the room, I see that my grey hair gives me at least one qualification for the task. Playback and I arrived on the scene at about the same time.

Keywords

Killer Whale Song Type Humpback Whale Echolocation Call Song Sparrow 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abs, M. 1963. Field tests on the essential components of the European nightjar’s song. Proc. Int. Ornithol. Congr., 13, 202–205.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, R.D. 1961. Aggressiveness, territoriality, and sexual behaviour in field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae). Behaviour, 17, 130–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, A.A. 1937. Hunting with a microphone the voices of vanishing birds. Nat. Geographic, 71, 696–723.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, M.C. and Cunningham, M.A. 1985. The biology of bird-song dialects. Behay. Brain Sci., 8, 85–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Balcombe, J.P. 1990. Vocal recognition of pups by mother Mexican free-tailed bats, Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana. Anim. Behay., 39, 960–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balcombe, J.P. and Fenton, M.B. 1988. Eavesdropping by bats: the influence of echolocation call design and foraging strategy. Ethology, 79, 158–166.Google Scholar
  7. Barclay, R.M.R. 1982. Intel-individual use of echolocation calls: eavesdropping by bats. Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 10, 271–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Becker, P.H. 1982. The coding of species-specific characteristics in birds sounds. In: Evolution and Ecology of Acoustic Communication in Birds. Ibl.I. (Ed. by D.E. Kroodsma, E.H. Miller & H. Ouellet), pp. 213–252. Academic Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beer, C.G. 1982. Conceptual issues in the study of communication. In: Evolution and Ecology of Acoustic Communication in Birds. Ib1.11. (Ed. by D.E. Kroodsma, E.H. Miller & H. Ouellet), pp. 279–310. Academic Press; New York.Google Scholar
  10. Blair, W.F. and Littlejohn, M.J. 1960. Stage of speciation of two allopatric populations of chorus frogs (Pseudacris). Evolution, 14, 82–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bogert, C.M. 1947. A field study of homing in the Carolina toad. Am. Mas. Novit., 1355, 1–24.Google Scholar
  12. Brockway, B.F. 1965. Stimulation of ovarian development and egg laying by male courtship vocalization in budgerigars (Melopsittacus undulatus). Anim. Behay., 13, 575–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Busnel, R.-G. (Ed.) 1963. Acoustic Behaviour of Animals. Elsevier; Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  14. Busnel, R.-G. and Brémond, J.-C. 1961. Étude préliminaire du décodage des informations contenues dans le signal acoustique territorial du rouge-gorge (Erithacus rubecula L.). Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci., 252, 608–610.Google Scholar
  15. Busnel, M.-C. and Busnel, R.-G. 1955. La directivité acoustique des déplacements de la femelle d’Oecanthus pellucens (Scop.). In: L’Acoustique des Orthopteres. (Ed. by R.-G. Busnel), pp. 356-364. bust. Nat. de la Recherche Agronomique; Paris.Google Scholar
  16. Busnel, R.G., Giban, J., Gramet, Ph. and Pasquinelly, F. 1955. Observations préliminaires de la phonotaxie négative des corbeaux à des signaux acoustiques naturels. Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci., 241, 1846–1849.Google Scholar
  17. Cade, W. 1975. Acoustically orienting parasitoids: fly phonotaxis to cricket song. Science, 190, 1312–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cade, W.H. 1981. Field cricket spacing, and the phonotaxis of crickets and parasitoid flies to clumped and isolated cricket songs. Z. Tierpsychol., 55, 365–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cade, W.H. and Wyatt, D.R. 1984. Factors affecting calling behaviour in field crickets, Teleogryllus and Gryllus (age, weight, density and parasites). Behaviour, 88, 61–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Caldwell, M.C., Caldwell, D.K. and Hall, N.L. 1969. An experimental demonstration of the ability of an Atlantic bottlenosed dolphin to discriminate between whistles of other individuals of the same species. Los Angeles Co. Mus. Tech. Report, 6.Google Scholar
  21. Capranica, R.R. 1966. Vocal response of the bullfrog to natural and synthetic mating calls. J. Acoustical Soc. Am., 40, 1131–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Catchpole, C.K. 1978. Interspecific territorialism and competition in Acrocephalus warblers as revealed byGoogle Scholar
  23. playback experiments in areas of sympatry and allopatry. Anim. Behay.,26, 1072-1080. Catchpole, C.K. 1987. Bird song, sexual selection and female choice. Trends Ecol. Evol.,2, 94-97.Google Scholar
  24. Cheney, D.L. and Seyfarth R.M. 1982. How vervet monkeys perceive their grunts: field playbackGoogle Scholar
  25. experiments. Anim. Behay.,30, 739-751.Google Scholar
  26. Clutton-Brock, T.H. and Albon, S.D. 1979. The roaring of red deer and the evolution of honest advertisement. Behaviour, 69, 145–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Collias, N. and Joos, M. 1953. The spectrographic analysis of sound signals of the domestic fowl. Behaviour, 5, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cosens, S.E. and Falls, J.B. 1984. Structure and use of song in the yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus). Z. 77erpsychol., 66, 227–241.Google Scholar
  29. Crankshaw, O.S. 1979. Female choice in relation to calling and courtship song in Acheta domesticus. Anim. Behay., 27, 1274–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cummings, W.C. and Thompson, P.O. 1971. Gray whales, Eschrichtius robustus, avoid the underwater sounds of killer whales, Orcinus orca. Fish. Bull., 691, 525–530.Google Scholar
  31. Davies, N.B. and Halliday, T.R. 1978. Deep croaks and fighting assessment in toads, Bubo bufo. Nature, 274, 683–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dhondt, A.A. 1966. A method to establish boundaries of bird territories. Le Gerfaut, 56, 404-408. Dickinson, T. E. and Falls, J.B. 1989. How western meadowlarks respond to simulated intrusions by unmated females. Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 25, 217–225.Google Scholar
  33. Diehl, P., & Helb, H.-W. 1986. Radiotelemetric monitoring of heart-rate responses to song playback in blackbirds (Turdus merula). Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 18, 213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dilger, W.C. 1956. Hostile behavior and reproductive isolating mechanisms in the avian genera Catharus and Hylocichla. Auk, 73, 313–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dunning, D.C. and Roeder, K.D. 1965. Moth sounds and the insect catching behaviour of bats. Science, 147, 173–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Emlen, S.T., Rising, J.D. and Thompson, W.L. 1975. A behavioral and morphological study of sympatry in the indigo and lazuli buntings of the great plains. Wilson Bull., 87, 145–179.Google Scholar
  37. Eriksson, D. and Wallin, L. 1986. Male bird song attracts females–a field experiment. Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 19, 297–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Espmark, Y. 1971. Individual recognition by voice in reindeer mother-young relationship. Field observation and playback experiments. Behaviour, 40, 295–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ewing, A.W. 1989. Arthropod Bioacoustics: Neurobiology and Behaviour. Cornell University Press; Ithaca.Google Scholar
  40. Falls, J.B. 1963. Properties of bird song eliciting responses from territorial males. Proc. XIII Ina. Ornithol. Congr., 259–271.Google Scholar
  41. Falls, J.B. 1981. Mapping territories with playback: an accurate census method for songbirds. In: Estimating the Numbers of Terrestrial Birds. (Ed. by C.J. Ralph & J.M. Scott). Stud. Avian Biol., 6, 86–91.Google Scholar
  42. Falls, J.B. 1982. Individual recognition by sounds in birds. In: Evolution and Ecology of Acoustic Communication in Birds. Vol.11. (Ed. by D.E. Kroodsma, E.H. Miller & H. Ouellet), pp. 237278. Academic Press; New York.Google Scholar
  43. Falls, J.B. 1985. Song matching in western meadowlarks. Can. J. Zool., 63, 2520–2524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Falls, J.B. 1988. Does song deter intrusion in white-throated sparrows? Can. J. Zool., 66, 206–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Falls, J.B. and d’Agincourt, L.G. 1982. Why do meadowlarks switch song-types? Can. J. Zool., 60, 3400–3408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Falls, J.B., Dickinson, T.E. and Krebs, J.R. 1990. Contrast between successive songs affects the response of eastern meadowlarks to playback. Anim. Behay., 39, 717–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Falls, J.B., Horn, A.G. and Dickinson, T.E. 1988. How western meadowlarks classify their songs: evidence from song matching. Anim. Behay., 36, 579–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Falls, J.B. and Krebs, J.R. 1975. Sequence of songs in repertoires of western meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta). Can. J. Zool., 53, 1165–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Falls, J.B., Krebs, J.R. and McGregor, P.K. 1982. Song matching in the great tits (Parus major): the effects of similarity and familiarity. Anim. Behay., 30, 997–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Falls, J.B. and McNichol], M.K. 1979. Neighbor-stranger discrimination by song in male blue grouse. Can. J. Zool., 57, 457–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Falls, J.B. and Szijj, L.J. 1959. Reactions of eastern and western meadowlarks in Ontario to each others’ vocalizations. Anat. Rec., 134, 560.Google Scholar
  52. Fish, J.F. and Vania, J.S. 1971. Killer whale, Orcinus orca, sounds repel white whales, Delphinapterus leuca. Fish. Bull., 69, 531–535.Google Scholar
  53. Forrest, T.G. 1980. Phonotaxis in mole crickets: its reproductive significance. Fla. Entomol., 63, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Frings, H., Frings, M., Jumber, J., Busnel, R.-G., Giban, J. and Gramet, Ph. 1958. Reactions of American and French species of Corvus and Larus to recorded communication signals tested reciprocally. Ecology, 39, 126–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Frings, H. and Jumber, J. 1954. Preliminary studies in the use of a specific sound to repel starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) from objectionable roosts. Science, 119, 318–319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Garner, R.L. 1892. The Speech of Monkeys. New York; C.L. Webster.Google Scholar
  57. Gerhardt, H.C. 1974. The significance of some spectral features in mating call recognition in the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea). J. Exp. Biol., 61, 229–241.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Gerhardt, H.C. 1978. Temperature coupling in the vocal communication system of the gray treefrog, Hyla versicolor. Science, 199, 992–994.Google Scholar
  59. Gerhardt, H.C. 1991. Female mate choice in treefrogs: static and dynamic acoustic criteria. Anim. Behay., 42, 615–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Gish, S.L. and Morton, E.S. 1981. Structural adaptations to local habitat acoustics in Carolina wren songs. Z. Tierpsychol., 56, 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Gliransson, G., Hôgstedt, G., Karlsson, J., Källander, H. and Ulfstrand, S. 1974. Sangensroll für revirkallandet hos näktergal, Luscinia luscinia - nagra experiment med playback-teknik. Var Fagelvärld, 33, 201–209.Google Scholar
  62. Grove, P.A. 1981. The effect of location and stage of nesting on neighbor/stranger discrimination in the house wren. unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, City University of New York.Google Scholar
  63. Gunn, W.W.H. 1951. The Woodcock Program. Ontario Dept. of Lands and Forests, Div. of Res., Wildlife Sec. 30 pp. (mimeographed).Google Scholar
  64. Harrington, F.H. 1986. Timber wolf howling playback studies: discrimination of pup from adult howls. Anim. Behay., 34, 1575–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Haskell, P.T. 1957. Stridulation and associated behaviour in certain Orthoptera, I. Analysis of the stridulation of, and behaviour between, males. Brit. J. Anim. Behay., 5, 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hawkins, A.D. and Myrberg, A.A.,Jr. 1983. Hearing and sound communication under water. In: Bioacoustics: a Comparative Approach. (Ed. by B. Lewis ), pp. 347–405. Academic Press; London.Google Scholar
  67. Heady, S.E. and Denno, R.F. 1991. Reproductive isolation in Prokelisia planthoppers (Homoptera: Delphacidae): acoustic differentiation and hybridization failure. J. Insect Behan, 4, 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Hinde, R.A. 1958. Alternative motor patterns in chaffinch song. Anim. Behay., 6, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Hotting, C.S. 1964. The analysis of complex population processes. Can. Entomol., 96, 335–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Horn, A.G. and Falls, J.B. 1988. Response of western meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta) to song repetition and contrast. Anim. Behay., 36, 291–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Huber, F. and Thorson, J. 1985. Cricket auditory communication. Sci. Am., 253, 60–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Hurly, T.A., Ratcliffe, L. and Weisman, R. 1990. Relative pitch recognition in white-throated sparrows, Zonotrichia albicollis. Anim. Behay., 40, 176–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Jones, J. 1987. Use of space by male white-throated sparrows (Zonotrichia albicollis). unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  74. Kahn, M.C. and Offenhauser, W.,Jr. 1949. First field tests of recorded mosquito sound used for mosquito destruction. Am. J. Trop. Med., 29, 811–825.Google Scholar
  75. King, A.P. and West, M.J. 1983. Dissecting cowbird song potency: assessing a song’s geographic identity and relative appeal. Z. Tierpsychol., 63, 37–50.Google Scholar
  76. Konishi, M. 1977. Spatial localization of sound. In: Dahlem 4lbrkshop on Recognition of Complex Acoustic Signals. (Ed. by T. Bullock ), pp. 127–143. Dahlem Konf.; Berlin.Google Scholar
  77. Kramer, B. 1990. Electrocommunication in Teleost Fishes. Behaviour and Experiments. Springer-Verlag; Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Kramer, H.G., Lemon, R.E. and Morris, M.J. 1985. Song switching and agonistic stimulation in the song sparrow (Melospiza melodia): five tests. Anim. Behay., 33, 135–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Krebs, J.R. 1977. Song and territory in the great tit. In: Evolutionary Ecology. (Ed. by B. Stonehouse & C.M. Perrin), pp. 47–62. Macmillan; London.Google Scholar
  80. Krebs, J.R., Ashcroft, R. and Webber, M. 1978. Song repertoires and territory defence in the great tit. Nature, 271, 539–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Kroodsma, D.E. 1976. Reproductive development in a female songbird: differential stimulation by quality of male song. Science, 192, 574–575.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Kroodsma, D.E. 1982. Learning and the ontogeny of sound signals in birds. In: Evolution and Ecology of Acoustic Communication in Birds. lbl.11. (Ed. by D.E. Kroodsma, E.H. Miller & H. Ouellet), pp. 125–146. Academic Press; New York.Google Scholar
  83. Kroodsma, D.E., Miller, E.H. and Ouellet, H. 1982. Acoustic Communication in Birds. Vol. I. Production, Perception, and Design Features of Sounds. Academic Press; New York.Google Scholar
  84. Kroodsma, D.E., Miller, E.H. and Ouellet, H. 1982. Acoustic Communication in Birds. Vol. 11. Song Learning and Its Consequences. New York; Academic Press.Google Scholar
  85. Lanyon, W.E. 1963. Experiments on species discrimination in Myiarchus flycatchers. Am. Mus. Novit., 2126, 1–16.Google Scholar
  86. Lanyon, W.E. and Tavolga, W.N. (Eds.). 1960. Animal Sounds and Communication. AIBS; Washington. Leary, J. 1991. Intruders on yellow-eyed Junco territories. Wilson Bull., 103, 292–295.Google Scholar
  87. Littlejohn, M.J. and Michaud, T.C. 1959. Mating call discrimination by females of Strecker’s chorus frog (Pseudacris streckeri). Tex. J. Sci., 11, 86–92.Google Scholar
  88. Lowther, J.K. 1962. Colour and behavioural polymorphism in the white-throated sparrow, Zonotrichia albicollis (Gmelin). unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  89. Margoliash, D. and Konishi, M. 1985. Auditory representation of autogenous song in the song system of white-crowned sparrows. Neurobiology, 82, 5997–6000.Google Scholar
  90. Marier, P. 1955. Characteristics of some animal calls. Nature, 176, 6–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Marier, P.R. and Peters, S. 1982. Subsong and plastic song: their role in the vocal learning process. In: Evolution and Ecology of Acoustic Communication in Birds. Io1.Il. (Ed. by D.E. Kroodsma, E.H. Miller & H. Ouellet), pp. 25–50. Academic Press; New York.Google Scholar
  92. Martof, B.S. and Thompson, E.F.,Jr. 1958. Reproductive behavior of the chorus frog, Pseudacris nigrita. Behaviour, 13, 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Melemis, S.M. and Falls, J.B. 1982. The defense function: a measure of territorial behavior. Can. J. Zool., 60, 495–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. McComb, K. 1987. Roaring by red deer stags advances the date of oestrous in hinds. Nature, 330, 648–649.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. McComb, K.E. 1991. Female choice for high roaring rates in red deer, Cervus elephus. Anim. Behan, 41, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. McGregor, P.K. and Avery, M.I. 1986. The unsung songs of great tits (Parus major): learning neighbours’ songs for discrimination. Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 18, 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. McGregor, P.K., Krebs, J.R. and Ratcliffe, L.M. 1983. The reaction of great tits (Parus major) to the playback of degraded and undegraded songs: the effects of familiarity with the stimulus song type. Auk, 100, 898–906.Google Scholar
  98. Morris, G.K. and Fullard, J.H. 1983. Random noise and congeneric discrimination in Conocephalus (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae). In: Orthopteran Mating Systems. (Ed. by D.T. Gwynne & G.K. Morris), pp. 73–96. Westview Press; Boulder.Google Scholar
  99. Morton, E.S. 1982. Grading, discreteness, redundancy, and motivation-structural rules. In: Evolution and Ecology of Acoustic Communication in Birds. loll. (Ed. by D.E. Kroodsma, E.H. Miller &Google Scholar
  100. H. Ouellet), pp. 183-212. Academic Press; New York.Google Scholar
  101. Moulton, J.M. 1956. Influencing the calling of sea robins (Prionotus spp.) with sound. Biol. Bull., 111, 393–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Myrberg, A.A.,Jr. 1981. Sound communication and interception in fishes. In: Hearing and Sound Communication in Fishes. (Ed. by W.N. Tavolga, A.N. Popper & R.R. Fay), pp. 395–425. Springer-Verlag; New York.Google Scholar
  103. Myrberg, A.A.,Jr, Mohler, M. and Catala, J.D. 1986. Sound production by males of a coral reef fish (Pomacentrus partitus): its significance to females. Anim. Behay., 34, 913–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Myrberg, A.A.,Jr and Riggio, R.J. 1985. Acoustically mediated individual recognition by a coral reef fish (Pomacentrus partitus). Anim. Behay., 33, 411–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Myrberg, A.A.,Jr, Spanier, E. and Ha, S.J. 1978. Temporal patterning in acoustical communication. In: Contrasts in Behavior. (Ed. by E.S. Reese and F.J. Lighter ), pp. 137–179. John Wiley; New York.Google Scholar
  106. Narins, P.M. and Capranica, R.R. 1976. Sexual differences in the auditory system of the treefrog, Eleutherodactylus coqui. Science, 192, 378–380.Google Scholar
  107. Nelson, D.A. 1987. Song syllable discrimination by song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). J. Comp. Psychol., 101, 25–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Nelson, D.A. 1988. Feature weighting in species song recognition by the field sparrow (Spizella pusilla). Behaviour, 106, 158–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Nowicki, S. 1983. Flock-specific recognition of chickadee calls. Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 12, 317-320. Payne, K. 1989. Elephant talk. Nat. Geographic, 176, 265–277.Google Scholar
  110. Payne, R.B. 1986. Bird songs and avian systematics. In: Current Ornithology. Vol. III. (Ed. by R.J. Johnston ), pp. 87–126. Plenum: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Petrinovich, L. 1974. Individual recognition of pup vocalization by northern elephant seal mothers. Z. Tietpsychol., 34, 308–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Pimlott, D.H., Shannon, J.A. and Kolenosky, G.B. 1969. The ecology of the timber wolf in Algonquin Provincial Park. Ont. Dept. Lands and Forests Res. Rep. ( Wildlife) No. 87.Google Scholar
  113. Reed, T.M. 1982. Interspecific territoriality in the chaffinch and the great tit on islands and the mainland of Scotland: playback and removal experiments. Anim. Behay., 30, 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Regen, J. 1913. Über die Anlockung des Weibchens von Gryllus campestris L. durch telephonisch übertragene Stridulationslaute des Männchens. Arch. Physiol. Menschen u. Tiere, 155, 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Richards, D.G. 1981a. Estimation of distance of singing conspecifics by the Carolina wren. Auk, 98, 127–133.Google Scholar
  116. Richards, D.G. 1981b. Alerting and message components in songs of rufous-sided towhees. Behaviour, 76, 223–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Roth, L.M. 1948. A study of mosquito behavior. An experimental laboratory study of the sexual behavior of Aedes aegypti L. Am. Midi. Nat., 40, 265–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Ryan, M.J. 1981. Female mate choice in a neotropical frog. Science, 209, 523–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Searcy, W.A. and Andersson, M. 1986. Sexual selection and the evolution of song. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 17, 507–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Searcy, W.A. and Marler, P. 1981. A test for responsiveness to song structure and programming in female sparrows. Science, 213, 926–928.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Searcy, W.A., McArthur, P.D., Peters, S.S. and Mader, P. 1981. Response of male song and swamp sparrows to neighbor, stranger and self songs. Behaviour, 77, 152–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Sebeok, T.A. 1977. How Animals Communicate. Indiana University Press; Bloomington, Indiana. Shiovitz, K.A. 1975. The process of species-specific song recognition by the indigo bunting, Passerina cyanea, and its relationship to the organization of avian acoustical behavior. Behaviour, 55, 128–179.Google Scholar
  123. Smith, W.J. 1965. Message, meaning and context in ethology. Am. Nat., 99, 405–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Speirs, E.A.H. and Davis, L.S. 1991. Discrimination by Adelie penguins, Pygoscelis adeliae, between the loud mutual calls of mates, neighbours and strangers. Anim. Behay., 41, 937–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Stefanski, R.A. and Falls, J.B. 1972a. A study of distress calls of song, swamp and white-throatedsparrows (Ayes: Fringillidae). I. Intraspecific responses and functions. Can. J. Zool., 50, 1501–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Stefanski, R.A. and Falls, J.B. 1972b. A study of distress calls of song, swamp and white-throatedGoogle Scholar
  127. sparrows (Ayes: Fringillidae). II. Interspecific responses and properties used in recognition. Can. J. Zool., 50, 1513–1525.Google Scholar
  128. Stoddart, P.K., Beecher, M.D. Horning, C.L. and Campbell, S.E. 1990. Strong neighbor-stranger discrimination in song sparrows. Condor, 92, 1051–1056.Google Scholar
  129. Tavolga, W.N. 1958. The significance of underwater sounds produced by males of the gobiid fish, Bathygobius soporator. Physiol. Zool., 31, 259–271.Google Scholar
  130. Tembrock, G. 1963. Acoustic behaviour of mammals. In: Acoustic Behaviour of Animals. (Ed. by R.-G. Busnel ), pp. 751–786. Elsevier; Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  131. Theberge, J.B. and Falls, J.B. 1967. Howling as a means of communication in timber wolves. Am. Zool., 7, 331–338.Google Scholar
  132. Thorpe, W.H. 1958. The learning of song patterns by birds, with especial reference to the song of the chaffinch, Fringilla coelebs. Ibis, 100, 535–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Todt, D. 1981. On functions of vocal matching: effect of counter-replies on song post choice and singing. Z. Tierpsychol., 57, 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Tuttle, M.D. and Ryan, M.J. 1981. Bat predation and the evolution of frog vocalizations in the neotropics. Science, 214, 677–678.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Tyack, P. 1983. Differential response of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, to playback of song or social sounds. Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 13, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Walker, T.J. 1957. Specificity in the response of female tree crickets (Orthop. Gryllidae Oecanthinae) to calling songs of males. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am., 50, 626–636.Google Scholar
  137. Waser, P.M. 1975. Experimental playbacks show vocal mediation of intergroup avoidance in a forest monkey. Nature, 255, 56–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Weary, D.M., Falls, J.B. and McGregor, P.K. 1990. Song matching and the perception of song types in great tits, Parus major. Behay. Ecol., 1, 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Weary, D.M., Lambrechts, M.M. and Krebs, J.R. 1991. Does singing exhaust male great tits? Anim. Behay., 41, 540–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Weary, D.M., Lemon, R.E. and Date, E.M. 1986. Acoustic features used in song discrimination by the veery. Ethology, 72, 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Weeden, J.S. and Falls, J.B. 1959. Differential responses of male ovenbirds to recorded songs of neighboring and more distant individuals. Auk, 76, 343–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Wells, K.D. and Taigan, T.L. 1986. The effect of social interaction on calling energetics in the gray treefrog Hyla versicolour. Behay. Ecol. Sociobiol., 19, 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Wells, K.D. and Schwartz, J.J. 1984. Vocal communication in a neo-tropical treefrog, Hyla ebraccata: aggressive calls. Behaviour, 91, 128–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Wiewandt, T.A. 1969. Vocalization, aggregation behavior and territoriality in the bullfrog, Rana catesbiana. Copeia, 69, 276–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Winn, H.E. 1967. Vocal facilitation and the biological significance of toadfish sounds. In: Marine Bioacoustics. Ibl. 2. (Ed. by W.N. Tavolga ), pp. 283–303. Pergamon Press; New York.Google Scholar
  146. Winn, H.E. 1972. Acoustic discrimination by the toadfish with comments on signal systems. In: Behavior of Marine Animals, Current Perspectives in Research. lbl. 2, Vertebrates. (Ed. by H. Winn & B.L. 011a), pp. 361–385. Plenum Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Wishart, G. and Riordan, D.F. 1959. Flight responses to various sounds by adult males of Aedes aegypti L. (Diptera, Culicidae). Can. Entomol., 91, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Yasukawa, K. 1981. Song repertoires in the red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus): a test of the beau geste hypothesis. Anim. Behay., 29, 114–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Bruce Falls
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations