The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
THE SENSORY BASIS OF SEXUAL SELECTION FOR COMPLEX CALLS IN THE TÚNGARA FROG,PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS(SEXUAL SELECTION FOR SENSORY EXPLOITATION)
Abstract
Male túngara frogs (Physalaemus pustulosus) vocalize to attract females, and enhance the attractiveness of their simple, whine-only call by adding chucks to produce complex calls. Complex calls contain more total energy and are of longer duration. By virtue of the greater frequency range of the chuck, complex calls also simultaneously stimulate both the amphibian papilla and the basilar papilla of the frog's inner ear. Female phonotaxis experiments using synthetic stimuli demonstrate that an increase in the call's acoustic energy is not sufficient to account for the enhanced attractiveness of the complex call. However, the stimulation of either or both of the female's sound-sensitive inner-ear organs is sufficient to elicit her preference. We suggest that the female's sensory system generates selection that equally favors at least three evolutionary alternatives for enhancing call attractiveness and that historical constraints imposed by the male's morphology determined which of the alternatives was more likely to evolve. These data are consistent with our hypothesis of sensory exploitation, which states that selection favors those traits that elicit greater stimulation from the female's sensory system and which emphasizes the nonadaptive nature of female preference.
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
Mate selection—A selection for a handicap
Zahavi, A. (1975) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-5193(75)90111-3 · Cited by 5,251
Cited by
Signals, Signal Conditions, and the Direction of Evolution
Endler, J. A. (1992) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/285308 · Cited by 1,960
Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals
Guilford, T., & Dawkins, M. S. (1991) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/s0003-3472(05)80600-1 · Cited by 1,019
Female Preference Predates the Evolution of the Sword in Swordtail Fish
Basolo, A. L. (1990) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.250.4982.808 · Cited by 624
A species-specific frequency filter through specific inhibition, not specific excitation
A., S. (2002) · Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology · doi:10.1007/s00359-002-0299-5 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Ryan, M. J., & Rand, A. S.
- Venue
- Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1990-03
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 305-314
- ISSN
- 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2334628903
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.18
- 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: THE SENSORY BASIS OF SEXUAL SELECTION FOR COMPLEX CALLS IN THE TÚNGARA FROG,PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS(SEXUAL SELECTION FOR SENSORY EXPLOITATION). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1990.tb05200.x
- The paper
- Ryan, M. J., & Rand, A. S. (1990). THE SENSORY BASIS OF SEXUAL SELECTION FOR COMPLEX CALLS IN THE TÚNGARA FROG,PHYSALAEMUS PUSTULOSUS(SEXUAL SELECTION FOR SENSORY EXPLOITATION). Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1990.tb05200.x
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.