Evolution

Is this like a chicken and the egg question? first came Mitosis

But i find your question strange is it not due to evolutionary survival that mating rituals has become so elaborate.

Reproduction came first. To make it attractive, the incentive was mating instinct. Survival (of oneself) is secondary, taking the example of the spider which is devoured by its female mate.

Since you started this thread, what is the biological incentive for same-sex mating? No offence meant to anyone....just curious.

i did'nt imply that. or did i?

curiosity...isn't that really the start?

Mabe it depends of whether the 'survival' part is survival of the species, or survival of the individual. Lets have some nice words to play with.

What's odd about birds and plummage ? They're unlikely to go for a scraggy males that looks so malnourished it can barely fly. In any event, plenty of animals don't bother aking a prospective female - the males simply fight each other off. The ability to do so will also determine their place in the pecking order.

a female bird seems to be more attracted by the plumage of one male over another male even if they look idendical to the human eye.

How do you know ?

You mean you haven't been watching the Avian version of Snog Marry Avoid?
Del

So, a cheerleader with 2 left legs is GA, and my perfectly innocent question is OT ? Evolution has your card marked .

Because they choose that particular bird to mate with.

Tests have been done with the plumage hidden or discolored and the results were different.

nice plumage...

Let's have a big round of applause for iteroparity!!!!!!!!

I'm waiting for an explanation of 70's fashion and disco dancing .

thank you for understanding the question.

'...elaborate displays and complicated ritualistic behaviors only develop when survival is easy, food is plentiful, not many predators....'.

I can't think of any top predator species with males that use colorful displays, even with a lack of meaningful risk of becoming prey.

Colorful and otherwise costly displays by males are found in species for which predation is a risk, most likely, because surviving with a costly display is a very strong indicator of fitness to the potential female mates.

Many top predators (not all) are color blind or see in limited color therefore having colorful displays would not benefit the male in attracting a female. However, many have other physical features that are important- size of fangs, tusks, manes, even scars, etc.

It is interesting that prey utilizes flashy (life threatening) colors to attract its mates though.

I can't find very many apex predators that are color blind, so I doubt this is the reason colorful displays are not used to woo females. Killer whales, jaguars, tigers, polar bears, grizzly bears, dogs/wolves, and man can all distinguish color variation.

I did find that lions and sharks are considered colorblind.

Colorful flashy displays of males as a form of sexual competition for females is not seen in apex predators and is exclusively seen in species subject to predation, because surviving with such a handicap is a very strong signal indicating a high level of fitness. If there is no threat from predators, the colorful flashy display is no longer such a strong indicator of high fitness.

I believe that I stated color blind or limited color sight. Canines (wolves/dogs) see yellow,blue and green but muted shades.Reptiles (crocs,etc.) with the exception of turtles (which see a full range of color) see utraviolet colors only; whales (not sure if this applies to the Killer whale or if he is an exception) and seals do not have cones in their eyes so are color blind, cats have some cones (with a greater number of rods needed for night vision) but limited color range and hue ;and nocturnal predators like owls are color blind. Of course these are generalizations based on the animal's eye anatomy. For many of these animals scent is as if not more important (not unlike human's use of cologne and perfumes).

You did specify seeing in limited color, and I missed that. My bad.

the point I was (doing a poor job of) making, and still hold is that:

.

given the large numbers of apex predators with the ability to distinguish colors;

.

the complete absence (to my knowledge) of flashy colorful displays by males as sexual courtship;

.

coupled with the numerous species subject to predation for which the flashy colorful displays by males is a prominent courtship role;

.

makes for weighty evidence in support of the idea that flashy colorful displays are strong signals indicating fitness of which an essential component is the cost of increased risk of predation. Without the cost, the signal is not so strongly indicative of fitness.

I agree a strong family association from birth plays an important part in recognition. But I was thinking more along the lines of the dinosaurs and modern sea turtles who emerged from an egg? Of cause the dinosuar parent like the alligator my have looked after the nest? I also read somewhere that the dinosaurs where also physically and colourfully adorned for the purpose of attracting a mate. So evolution marches on. Like your photo's.

Regards JD.

What if you were blind, how would you determine who to mate with? what would be your attraction?

I don't think it would take long to get the feel of things, and flesh out the situation.

In all seriousness, attraction does not rely solely on vision. Other senses may influence attraction more strongly than vision in many cases.

You might well find this interesting and to the point. It was on yesterday so it is up-to-date.

Typically in sexually dimorphic species the striking colorful displays of the male are an indication of fitness.

While colorful displays do show that the male been able to compete successfully for the diet sufficient to grow the display, the more important factor is it shows that the male is fit enough to survive with the costly addition of the display.

As such, a display must be costly (to the individual male) to signal fitness to the female.

The Israeli zoologist Amotz Zahavi developed the handicap princinciple theory which explains this problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle

Are all animals,birds and reptiles colour blind?.

No, actually birds and reptiles have better color vision than humans, having 4 different color receptors rather than 3. Most mammals other than primates, I believe, only have 2 primary colors.

It takes both. You have to survive and attract a mate. In the end, the one with the most offspring wins.

Sorry: couldn't resist:-

With thanks to Gary Larson.

That, in itself, might support the 'mating first' theory. People enjoying some (social) intercourse, with merry abandon as to the possibility of admin censorship.

It pains me to do so, but I must uncheck the OT box.