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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Enjoying our latest content?
Log in or create an account to continue
- Access the most recent journalism from Nature's award-winning team
- Explore the latest features & opinion covering groundbreaking research
or
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
