The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Song Repertoire and Mate Choice in Birds
Abstract
In many species of birds, individual males possess “repertoires” of multiple versions of the species song. Females of several of these species have been shown to respond preferentially in courtship to larger song repertoires. The female preference for large repertoires usually has little effect on female settlement, but is likely to affect mate choice in extra-pair copulations. A number of hypotheses have been proposed to explain the evolution of the female preference. Some of these posit a natural selective advantage for the preference, in securing for the female a better territory, better paternal care for the offspring, or a mate with good genes. Another hypothesis suggests the male trait and female preference have coevolved in a process of runaway sexual selection. Here I show that female common grackles (Quiscalus quiscula) court preferentially for repertoires of four song types compared to equal numbers of repetitions of single song types.The female preference exists in common grackles despite the fact that males in this species sing only one song type each. None of the usual hypotheses, based on natural or sexual selection, can explain the occurrence of the female preference in a species in which males lack the preferred trait. Instead, the female preference may be a simple consequence of two properties of most response systems: habituation and stimulus specificity. If so, female preferences for repertoires may in general pre-date the evolution of male song repertoires, which evolve to exploit the pre-existing female response bias.
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
Cites
The genetical theory of natural selection
Fisher, R. A. (1930) · doi:10.5962/bhl.title.27468 · Cited by 17,617
Cited by
Acoustic sequences in non‐human animals: a tutorial review and prospectus
Kershenbaum, A., Blumstein, D. T., Roch, M. A., Akçay, Ç., Backus, G., Bee, M. A., Bohn, K., Cao, Y., Carter, G., Cäsar, C., et al. (2016) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1111/brv.12160 · Cited by 337
Perceptual Biases and Mate Choice
Ryan, M. J., & Cummings, M. E. (2013) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135901 · Cited by 284
Johnson, Z. V., & Young, L. J. (2017) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.01.034 · Cited by 242
Song complexity correlates with learning ability in zebra finch males
Boogert, N. J., Giraldeau, L.-A., & Lefebvre, L. (2008) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.08.009 · Cited by 201
The evolution of vocal learning
Nowicki, S., & Searcy, W. A. (2014) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.conb.2014.06.007 · Cited by 134
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- SEARCY, W. A.
- Venue
- American Zoologist
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1992-02
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 71-80
- ISSN
- 0003-1569 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2080943313
- Cited by
- 290
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Song Repertoire and Mate Choice in Birds. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/icb/32.1.71
- The paper
- SEARCY, W. A. (1992). Song Repertoire and Mate Choice in Birds. American Zoologist. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/32.1.71
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.