Table 2. Latency data.
| A | 1950s | 1990s | 2000s | |||
| N | Latency | N | Latency | N | Latency | |
| ♂ persimilis X ♀ persimilis | 86 | 54 (50) | 100 | 61 (60) | 95 | 73 (65) |
| ♂ pseudoobscura X ♀ pseudoobscura | 100 | 46 (51) | 99 | 40 (50) | 101 | 42 (43) |
| ♂ pseudoobscura(S) X ♀ persimilis | 202 | 46 (56) | 197 | 57 (59) | 198 | 48 (51) |
| 198 | 43 (51) | |||||
| ♂ pseudoobscura(A) X ♀ persimilis | 200 | 49 (54) | 201 | 60 (66) | 200 | 44 (52) |
| ♂ persimilis X ♀ pseudoobscura(S) | 197 | 62 (55) | 196 | 56 (51) | 198 | 77 (66) |
| 198 | 62 (54) | |||||
| ♂ persimilis X ♀ pseudoobscura(A) | 196 | 61 (58) | 199 | 72 (62) | 195 | 63 (54) |
Sample size and average courtship latency in seconds for each type of conspecific and heterospecific pairing for each of the three collection time points. Standard deviations shown in parentheses.