Skip to main content
PMC home page
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 1998 Sep 22;265(1407):1743–1748. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0497

The evolution of mate choice and the potential for conflict between species and mate-quality recognition

K S Pfennig
PMCID: PMC1689351

Abstract

Understanding how individuals select mates becomes complex when high-quality conspecifics resemble heterospecifics. Individuals facing such a situation may be unable to effectively identify both conspecifics (species recognition) and high-quality mates that can confer fitness benefits to the choosy individual or its offspring (mate-quality recognition). Here I suggest when a conflict may occur between species and mate-quality recognition, discuss the evolutionary consequences stemming from this conflict, and present a model of mate-preference evolution in response to heterospecifics. Determining how species and mate-quality recognition interact to shape mate-choice decisions is important for understanding the diversification of sexually selected traits among closely related taxonomic groups, the use of complex sensory systems for detecting mates, and seemingly inappropriate mate-choice decisions.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (167.3 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Basolo A. L. Female preference predates the evolution of the sword in swordtail fish. Science. 1990 Nov 9;250(4982):808–810. doi: 10.1126/science.250.4982.808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brenowitz E. A. Altered perception of species-specific song by female birds after lesions of a forebrain nucleus. Science. 1991 Jan 18;251(4991):303–305. doi: 10.1126/science.1987645. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Dugatkin L. A. Interface between culturally based preferences and genetic preferences: female mate choice in Poecilia reticulata. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Apr 2;93(7):2770–2773. doi: 10.1073/pnas.93.7.2770. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Flechtner H., Queisser W., Heim M. E., Henss H., Arnold H., Fritze D., Herrmann R., Fritsch H., Fritz M., Trux F. A. 5-Fluorouracil, 4-epidoxorubicin, and mitomycin C (FEM) combination chemotherapy for advanced gastric carcinoma. A phase-II trial by the "chemotherapiegruppe gastrointestinaler tumoren (CGT)". Onkologie. 1987 Apr;10(2):67–71. doi: 10.1159/000216375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Lande R. Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981 Jun;78(6):3721–3725. doi: 10.1073/pnas.78.6.3721. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lejeune F., Liénard D., Eggermont A., Schraffordt Koops H., Rosenkaimer F., Gérain J., Klaase J., Kroon B., Vanderveken J., Schmitz P. Administration of high-dose tumor necrosis factor alpha by isolation perfusion of the limbs. Rationale and results. J Infus Chemother. 1995 Spring;5(2):73–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. McLENNAN DA, Ryan MJ. Responses to conspecific and heterospecific olfactory cues in the swordtail Xiphophorus cortezi. Anim Behav. 1997 Nov;54(5):1077–1088. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mello C. V., Vicario D. S., Clayton D. F. Song presentation induces gene expression in the songbird forebrain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Aug 1;89(15):6818–6822. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.15.6818. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Millar T. J., Salipan N., Oliver J. O., Morgan I. G., Chubb I. W. The concentration of enkephalin-like material in the chick retina is light dependent. Neuroscience. 1984 Sep;13(1):221–226. doi: 10.1016/0306-4522(84)90272-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. MÁrquez R, Bosch J. Male advertisement call and female preference in sympatric and allopatric midwife toads. Anim Behav. 1997 Dec;54(6):1333–1345. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0529. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Nakatsuru K., Kramer D. L. Is sperm cheap? Limited male fertility and female choice in the lemon tetra (pisces, characidae). Science. 1982 May 14;216(4547):753–755. doi: 10.1126/science.216.4547.753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Noor M. A. Speciation driven by natural selection in Drosophila. Nature. 1995 Jun 22;375(6533):674–675. doi: 10.1038/375674a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Phelan P. L., Baker T. C. Evolution of male pheromones in moths: reproductive isolation through sexual selection? Science. 1987 Jan 9;235(4785):205–207. doi: 10.1126/science.235.4785.205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ryan M. J. Coevolution of sender and receiver: effect on local mate preferecnce in cricket frogs. Science. 1988 Jun 24;240(4860):1786–1786. doi: 10.1126/science.240.4860.1786. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Ryan M. J., Fox J. H., Wilczynski W., Rand A. S. Sexual selection for sensory exploitation in the frog Physalaemus pustulosus. Nature. 1990 Jan 4;343(6253):66–67. doi: 10.1038/343066a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ryan M. J., Wagner W. E., Jr Asymmetries in mating preferences between species: female swordtails prefer heterospecific males. Science. 1987 May 1;236(4801):595–597. doi: 10.1126/science.236.4801.595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES