Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior

Living Edition
| Editors: Jennifer Vonk, Todd Shackelford

Ornamentation

  • Sandra Winters
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_315-1

Definition

A trait used to attract the opposite sex during mate choice.

Introduction

Many animals exhibit conspicuous characteristics such as brightly colored body regions or exaggerated physical structures. When these traits function during mate choice to increase the likelihood of their bearer attracting a mate, they are referred to as ornaments. The quintessential example of an ornament is the peacock’s tail: consisting of bright colors and patterns, and enlarged far beyond the relatively small tails of peahens, peacocks’ tails are presented to females during mating displays. Peahens then accept or reject a male based in part on his tail characteristics (Petrie et al. 1991). Ornaments are often sexually dimorphic, with one sex ornamented and the other not, but mutual ornamentation is also observed (Andersson 1994).

Ornamentation is linked to reproductive success, with individuals that display more elaborate ornaments enjoying a selective advantage. Ornamentations are therefore...

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

References

  1. Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, M., & Simmons, L. W. (2006). Sexual selection and mate choice. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 21, 297–302.Google Scholar
  3. Clutton-Brock, T. (2007). Sexual selection in males and females. Science, 38, 1882–1885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street.Google Scholar
  5. Johnston, S. E., Gratten, J., Berenos, C., Pilkington, J. G., Clutton-Brock, T. H., Pemberton, J. M., & Slate, J. (2013). Life history trade-offs at a single locus maintain sexually selected genetic variation. Nature, 502, 93–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kirkpatrick, M., & Ryan, M. J. (1991). The evolution of mating preferences and the paradox of the lek. Nature, 350, 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Petrie, M., Halliday, T., & Sanders, C. (1991). Peahens prefer peacocks with elaborate trains. Animal Behaviour, 41, 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Rowe, L., & Houle, D. (1996). The lek paradox and the capture of genetic variance by condition dependent traits. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences, 263, 1415–1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ryan, M. J. (1998). Sexual selection, receiver biases, and the evolution of sex differences. Science, 281, 1999–2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Számadó, S. (2011). The costs of honesty and the fallacy of the handicap principle. Animal Behaviour, 81, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Constance Dubuc
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CambridgeCambridgeUK