Skip Navigation



Behavioral Ecology Advance Access published online on June 19, 2006
Behavioral Ecology, doi:10.1093/beheco/arl014
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Lay Summary
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
17/5/757    most recent
arl014v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pillay, N.
Right arrow Articles by Ganem, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Pillay, N.
Right arrow Articles by Ganem, G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Received February 1, 2006
Revised April 12, 2006
Accepted May 3, 2006

Article

Divergence of mate recognition in the African striped mouse (Rhabdomys)

Neville Pillay 1 *, Jennifer Eborall 1, and Guila Ganem 2

1 School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, WITS 2050, Johannesburg, South Africa
2 Laboratoire Génétique et Environnement, Institut des Sciences de l'Évolution, UMR 5554 (CNRS), Université Montpellier II, France

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Neville Pillay, E-mail: nevillep{at}biology.biol.wits.ac.za


  Abstract

Mate recognition systems (MRSs) are complex signal-receiver traits. The present study addressed the roles of phylogeny, ecology, and geography in shaping the MRS of the African striped mouse (Rhabdomys), which has a wide distribution in southern Africa. Two putative species are recognized, which have different ecologies: Rhabdomys pumilio (arid) and Rhabdomys dilectus (mesic). The latter may be further subdivided into 2 subspecies (R. dilectus dilectus and R. dilectus chakae). Using 2 discrete populations per taxon, we investigated within- and between-taxon variations in male odor quality and female perception using habituation-discrimination and habituation-generalization tests, and female preference in 2-way choice tests. Our results indicate: 1) no within-taxon variation in odor quality, perception, or preference; 2) the 2 subspecies of R. dilectus carry signals of different qualities but share a common odor characteristic distinct from that of R. pumilio; 3) female R. pumilio did not show a preference when their own species and R. d. chakae odors were presented simultaneously but displayed assortative preference when the alternative was R. d. dilectus; 4) females of the 2 subspecies showed dissimilar preferences: R. d. chakae for the genetically more similar taxon and R. d. dilectus for the most different one. Although we could not rule out the influence of ecology, we concluded that phylogeny appeared a more parsimonious explanation for the pattern of divergence in Rhabdomys. Further, we discuss our results in light of current models on signal-receiver coevolution.

Keywords: allopatric divergence; female preference; mate recognition; odor; signal-receptor coevolution; soiled bedding.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Behav EcolHome page
C. Smadja and G. Ganem
Divergence of odorant signals within and between the two European subspecies of the house mouse
Behav. Ecol., January 1, 2008; 19(1): 223 - 230.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.