Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2003 Oct 22;270(1529):2159–2165. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2482

Nonlinear and correlational sexual selection on 'honest' female ornamentation.

Natasha R LeBas 1, Leon R Hockham 1, Michael G Ritchie 1
PMCID: PMC1691484  PMID: 14561280

Abstract

Female ornamentation has long been overlooked because of the greater prevalence of elaborate displays in males. However, the circumstances under which females would benefit from honestly signalling their quality are limited. Females are not expected to invest in ornamentation unless the fitness benefits of the ornament exceed those derived from investing the resources directly into offspring. It has been proposed that when females gain direct benefits from mating, females may instead be selected for ornamentation that deceives males about their reproductive state. In the empidid dance flies, males frequently provide nuptial gifts and it is usually only the female that is ornamented. Female traits in empidids, such as abdominal sacs and enlarged pinnate leg scales, have been proposed to 'deceive' males into matings by disguising egg maturity. We quantified sexual selection in the dance fly Rhamphomyia tarsata and found escalating, quadratic selection on pinnate scales and that pinnate scales honestly reflect female fecundity. Mated females had a larger total number and more mature eggs than unmated females, highlighting a potential benefit rather than a cost of male mate choice. We also show correlational selection on female pinnate scales and fecundity. Correlational selection, equivalent investment patterns or increased nutrition from nuptial gifts may all maintain honesty in female ornamentation.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (429.1 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Amundsen T. Why are female birds ornamented? Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Apr;15(4):149–155. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(99)01800-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnqvist G, Nilsson T. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Anim Behav. 2000 Aug;60(2):145–164. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2000.1446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bonduriansky R. The evolution of male mate choice in insects: a synthesis of ideas and evidence. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2001 Aug;76(3):305–339. doi: 10.1017/s1464793101005693. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Domb L. G., Pagel M. Sexual swellings advertise female quality in wild baboons. Nature. 2001 Mar 8;410(6825):204–206. doi: 10.1038/35065597. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Emlen D. J. Costs and the diversification of exaggerated animal structures. Science. 2001 Feb 23;291(5508):1534–1536. doi: 10.1126/science.1056607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Funk DH, Tallamy DW. Courtship role reversal and deceptive signals in the long-tailed dance fly, Rhamphomyia longicauda. Anim Behav. 2000 Feb;59(2):411–421. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1999.1310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Grafen A. Biological signals as handicaps. J Theor Biol. 1990 Jun 21;144(4):517–546. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80088-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hockham LR, Ritchie MG. Female secondary sexual characteristics: appearances might be deceptive. Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Nov 1;15(11):436–438. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(00)01963-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kokko Hanna, Johnstone Rufus A. Why is mutual mate choice not the norm? Operational sex ratios, sex roles and the evolution of sexually dimorphic and monomorphic signalling. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2002 Mar 29;357(1419):319–330. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2001.0926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Roff D. A., Gélinas M. B. Phenotypic plasticity and the evolution of trade-offs: the quantitative genetics of resource allocation in the wing dimorphic cricket, Gryllus firmus. J Evol Biol. 2003 Jan;16(1):55–63. doi: 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00480.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Roulin A., Jungi T. W., Pfister H., Dijkstra C. Female barn owls (Tyto alba) advertise good genes. Proc Biol Sci. 2000 May 7;267(1446):937–941. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Zahavi A. Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. J Theor Biol. 1975 Sep;53(1):205–214. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Zinner Dietmar, Alberts Susan C., Nunn Charles L., Altmann Jeanne. Evolutionary biology: significance of primate sexual swellings. Nature. 2002 Nov 14;420(6912):142–143. doi: 10.1038/420142a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES