The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Animal Signals: Models and Terminology
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Three classifications of signals are discussed. The first is based on the type of information that they convey. A `self-reporting signal' provides information about some property of the signaller, while an `other-reporting signal' conveys information about an object or organism other than the signaller. The second classification is based on the processes that maintain the reliability of the signal. A `minimal signal' is one whose cost is no greater than that needed to transmit the information effectively; such signals can only be reliable if signaller and receiver place the possible outcomes of the interaction in the same rank order. A `cost-added signal' is a signal whose cost is greater than that required to transmit the information. The intensity of the signal is correlated with some quality of interest to the receiver. This correlation exists because, in the past, receivers have responded differently to signals of different intensity. An `index' is a signal in which there is, again, a correlation between intensity of signal and quality, but one which does not depend on past coevolution, but on physical necessity. For example, if size is correlated with fighting ability, a signal conveying information about size is an index; in species in which the male feeds the young, courtship feeding is an index of his ability to do so. Since in both cost-added signals and indices, there is a correlation between signal intensity and some relevant quality of the signaller, both are examples of evaluation signals; this term can be used when the mechanism responsible for the correlation is uncertain. A third classification of signals is based upon the relationship between their form and that of the object, being signalled about. A `symbol' is arbitrarily linked with its object an `icon' resembles its object and an `index' is physically related to its object. It seems unlikely that many, if any, biological signals are symbols.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206310388419 · Cited by 6,735
From reciprocity to unconditional altruism through signalling benefits
Lotem, A., Fishman, M. A., & Stone, L. (2003) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2225 · Cited by 104
The evolution of begging: signaling and sibling competition
Rodríguez-Gironés, M. A., Cotton, P. A., & Kacelnik, A. (1996) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.93.25.14637 · Cited by 95
RUXTON, G. D., & SCHAEFER, H. M. (2011) · Journal of Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02386.x · Cited by 80
Nielsen, M., Kapitány, R., & Elkins, R. (2015) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.11.002 · Cited by 78
Metadata
- Authors
- Smith, M. J., & Harper, D. G. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Theoretical Biology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1995-12
- Volume
- 177
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 305-311
- ISSN
- 0022-5193 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2035122350
- Cited by
- 486
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Animal Signals: Models and Terminology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1006/jtbi.1995.0248
- The paper
- Smith, M. J., & Harper, D. G. C. (1995). Animal Signals: Models and Terminology. Journal of Theoretical Biology. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1995.0248
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.