Sexual selection and species recognition in the pygmy swordtail, Xiphophorus pygmaeus: conflicting preferences

By Hankison, Shala J., M.R. Morris

Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, (51):140–145 10-Nov-2001. DOI: 10.1007/s00265-001-0425-3


" Sexual selection and species recognition play important roles in mate choice; however, sexual selection preferences may overlap with traits found in hetero- specifics, producing a conflict between sexual selection and species recognition. We examined female preferences in Xiphophorus pygmaeus for male traits that could provide both types of information to determine how females use multiple cues when preferences for these cues would conflict. We also examined X. pygmaeus behavior in the field to determine if females have the opportunity to choose mates. As no male-male competition was observed in the field, and females occasionally chased males from feeding areas, females apparently have the opportunity to exercise mate choice in their natural habitat. In the laboratory, female X. pygmaeus used body size as a sexual selection cue, preferring large heterospecifics (X. cortezi) to small conspecifics. Females also preferred barless X. cortezi over barred X. cortezi when males were size matched. Because X. pygmaeus males do not have bars, this preference suggests that X. pygmaeus females use vertical bars in species recognition, and that large body size and vertical bars are conflicting cues. However, X. pygmaeus females did not have a preference for males of either species when sexual selection and species recognition cues were presented concurrently. This result was surprising, because preferences for species recognition cues are often assumed to be stronger than sexual selection cues. We suggest that females may be using additional species-specific cues in mate choice to prevent hybridization "

Language: English

Hankison, Shala J. & M.R. Morris. 2001. "Sexual selection and species recognition in the pygmy swordtail, Xiphophorus pygmaeus: conflicting preferences". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. (51):140–145. DOI: 10.1007/s00265-001-0425-3 (ffm00586) (abstract)