The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems
Abstract
Animal communication systems have evolved so that individuals can make decisions based upon the behaviour, physiology or morphology of others. Receiving mechanism s probably evolve to increase the efficiency and reliability of information reception whereas signals probably evolve to increase the efficiency of communication and reliability of manipulation of the receiving individual to the benefit of the emitter. The minimum requirement for clear reception suggests that any study of the evolution and design of communication systems must consider the factors that affect the quality of the received and processed signal. Critical information is needed about how the signal is generated and emitted, how it fares during transmission through air, water or substrate, how it is received and processed by the receiver’s sensory and cognitive systems, and the factors which affect the fitness consequences of alternative ways of reacting to the information contained in the signal. These should allow predictions about the kinds and forms of signals used by animals signalling under known conditions. Phylogenetic history, and the geological time a clade spends in different signalling environments, will also affect signal evolution, and hence the success of predictions about signal design. W e need to use methods of m any different biological fields to understand the design and evolution of signals and signalling systems.
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
Hebb, D. O. (2005) · doi:10.4324/9781410612403 · Cited by 9,825
Signals, Signal Conditions, and the Direction of Evolution
Endler, J. A. (1992) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/285308 · Cited by 1,960
Self-citation
Cited by
Human facial expressions as adaptations: Evolutionary questions in facial expression research
Schmidt, K. L., & Cohn, J. F. (2001) · American Journal of Physical Anthropology · doi:10.1002/ajpa.20001 · Cited by 560
Scent-marking by male mammals: Cheat-proof signals to competitors and mates
Gosling, L. M., & Roberts, S. C. (2001) · Advances in the Study of Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0065-3454(01)80007-3 · Cited by 411
Ecological drivers of song evolution in birds: Disentangling the effects of habitat and morphology
Derryberry, E. P., Seddon, N., Derryberry, G. E., Claramunt, S., Seeholzer, G. F., Brumfield, R. T., & Tobias, J. A. (2018) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.3760 · Cited by 120
“Selection should favor signal traits that optimize transmission of information from signaler to receiver (Endler, 1993).”
Dahlin, C. R., & Benedict, L. (2014) · Ethology · doi:10.1111/eth.12182 · Cited by 114
Brochosomes as an antireflective camouflage coating for leafhoppers
Wu, W., Mao, Q., Ye, Z.-X., Liao, Z., Shan, H.-W., Li, J.-M., Zhang, C.-X., & Chen, J.-P. (2025) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.99639.3 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Endler, J. A.
- Venue
- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 1993-05-29
- Volume
- 340
- Issue
- 1292
- Pages
- 215-225
- ISSN
- 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-2970
- OpenAlex
- W2155528423
- Cited by
- 663
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.05
- 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
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.
