The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sexual Selection, Receiver Biases, and the Evolution of Sex Differences
Abstract
REVIEW Recent approaches to analyzing the evolution of female mating preferences emphasize how historical influences on female receiver systems can bias the evolution of male traits that females find attractive. These studies combine animal behavior, sensory biology, phylogenetics, and artificial neural network models. They attempt to understand why specific phenotypes involved in sexual selection have evolved, rather than merely determining whether such traits and preferences are adaptive. It is now clear that traits and preferences often do not coevolve via genetic correlations, that female mating preferences for a given male trait are influenced by adaptations and constraints outside of the context of female responses to that particular trait, and that receiver biases can explain much of the diversity in male signaling phenotypes. It also appears that an understanding of historical effects will prove valuable in investigating why neural and cognitive systems respond to sensory stimuli as they do.
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
Signals, Signal Conditions, and the Direction of Evolution
Endler, J. A. (1992) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/285308 · Cited by 1,960
Cited by
Sexual selection and mate choice
Andersson, M., & Simmons, L. W. (2006) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.03.015 · Cited by 1,258
Reproductive Interference Between Animal Species
Gröning, J., & Hochkirch, A. (2008) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/590510 · Cited by 594
Character Displacement: Ecological And Reproductive Responses To A Common Evolutionary Problem
Pfennig, K. S., & Pfennig, D. W. (2009) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/605079 · Cited by 432
Rendall, D., Owren, M. J., & Ryan, M. J. (2009) · Animal Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.06.007 · Cited by 417
Self-citationA possible non-sexual origin of mate preference: are male guppies mimicking fruit?
Rodd, F. H., Hughes, K. A., Grether, G. F., & Baril, C. T. (2002) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1891 · Cited by 361
Metadata
- Authors
- Ryan, M. J.
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 1998-09-25
- Volume
- 281
- Issue
- 5385
- Pages
- 1999-2003
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W2088451903
- Cited by
- 419
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.01
- 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: Sexual Selection, Receiver Biases, and the Evolution of Sex Differences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1126/science.281.5385.1999
- The paper
- Ryan, M. J. (1998). Sexual Selection, Receiver Biases, and the Evolution of Sex Differences. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.281.5385.1999
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.