Abstract
Replying to Postma, Griffith and Brooks
We have shown1that there is little scope for selection on male flycatchers' forehead patch size to drive the evolution of female choice for this ornament indirectly. Postma et al.2question this conclusion, arguing that a female's social partner (that is, realized mate choice) is not a good estimate of her preference, and that our estimates are biased because we do not take patterns of extra-pair paternity into account. However, indirect sexual selection can only operate through realized mate choice, and extra-pair copulations are associated with larger costs than indirect benefits.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Qvarnström, A., Brommer, J. E. & Gustafsson, L. Nature 441, 84–86 (2006).
Postma, E., Griffith, S. C. & Brooks, R. Nature 444, 10.1038/nature05501 (2006).
Kirkpatrick, M. & Barton, N. H. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 1282–1286 (1997).
Arnqvist, G. & Kirkpatrick, M. Am. Nat. 165 (suppl.), 26–37 (2005).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Qvarnström, A., Brommer, J. & Gustafsson, L. Evolution of mate choice in the wild (Reply). Nature 444, E16–E17 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05502
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05502
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
