Regular rhythmic repetition is a basic element of music in all human cultures and appears in numerous animal courtship signals. We propose that rhythm can function in courtship displays as an indicator of underlying mate quality. We constructed a model to explore whether regularly repeating patterns can serve as amplifiers of the performer's underlying neural quality. Our co-evolutionary simulation comprises male “songs” and female preferences, represented by bit strings. Males produce songs by copying their inborn template with some noise, depending on their quality. The females in turn assess male quality by comparing the male song to their own template. Our model shows that rhythmic songs enable greater discrimination with regard to quality than non-rhythmic songs under a variety of circumstances, thereby implying that rhythmic signals may evolve as useful mate quality indicators.
EnquistM., & JohnstoneR.A., (1997). Generalization and the evolution of symmetry preferences. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 264, 1345–48.
7.
FisherR.A. (1930). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
GilD., & GahrM. (2002). The honesty of bird song: multiple constraints for multiple traits. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17, 133–41.
9.
GrammerK., KekiV., StriebelB., AtmüllerM., FinkB. (2003). Bodies in motion: a window to the soul. In VolandE., GrammerK. (eds), Evolutionary Aesthetics, pp. 295–24. Heidelberg, Berlin, NewYork: Springer.
10.
GriffithN., & ToddP.M. (eds), (1999). Musical networks: Parallel distributed perception and performance.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
11.
GuilfordT., & DawkinsM.S. (1991). Receiver psychology and the evolution of animal signals. Animal Behavior, 42, 1–14.
12.
HassonO. (1989). Amplifiers and the handicap principle in sexual selection: a different emphasis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B- Biological Sciences, 235(1281): 383–406.
13.
HelekarS.A., MarshS., ViswanathN.S., & RosenfieldD.B. (2000). Acoustic pattern variations in the female-directed birdsongs of a colony of laboratory-bred zebra finches. Behavioral Processes, 49, 99–110.
14.
HesslerN.A., & DoupeA.J. (1999). Social context modulates singing-related neural activity in the songbird forebrain. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 209–11.
15.
IwasaY., PomiankowskiA., & NeeS. (1991). The evolution of costly mate preferences. II. The ‘handicap’ principle. Evolution, 45, 1431–42.
16.
JohnstoneR.A. (1994). Female preference for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition. Nature, 372, 172–75.
17.
KamoM., GhirlandaS., & EnquistM. (2003). The evolution of signal form: Effects of learned versus inherited recognition. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 269, 1765–71.
18.
KenwardB., WachtmeisterCA., GhirlandaS., & EnquistM. (2004). Spots and stripes: the evolution of repetition in visual signal form. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 230, 407–19.
19.
LambrechtsM., & DhondtA.A. (1988). The anti-exhaustion hypothesis — a new hypothesis to explain song performance and song switching in the great tit. Animal Behaviour, 36, 327–34.
20.
MillerG. F. (2000a). Evolution of human music through sexual selection. In WallinN. L., MerkerB., & BrownS. (eds), The origins of music329–60. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
MillerG. F. (2000b). Mental traits as fitness indicators: Expanding evolutionary psychology's adaptationism. In Evolutionary perspectives on humna reproductive behavior (Annals of the New York academy of Science), 907, 62–74.
22.
NowickiS., SearcyW.A., & PetersS. (2002). Brain development, song learning and mate choice in birds: a review and experimental test of the “nutritional stress hypothesis”. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 188, 1003–14.
23.
ParsonsP.A. (1992). Fluctuating asymmetry: a biological monitor of environmental and genomic stress. Heredity, 68, 361–64.
24.
PodosJ. (1996). Motor constraints on vocal development in a songbird. Animal Behaviour, 51, 1061–70.
25.
SearcyW.A., & AnderssonM. (1986). Sexual selection and the evolution of song. Annual Review of Ecological Systems, 17, 507–33.
26.
SearcyW.A., & NowickiS. (2005). The evolution of animal communication: Reliability and deception in signaling systems.Princeton: Princeton University Press.
27.
SearcyW. A., & YasukawaK. (1996). Song and female choice. In KroodsmaD. E., & MillerE. H. (eds), Ecology and evolution of acoustic communication in birds454–73. New York: Cornell University Press.
28.
SlabbekoornH., & Ten CateC. (1999). Collared dove responses to playback: Slaves to the rhythm. Ethology, 105, 377–91.
29.
van den BroekE., & ToddP.M. (2003). Piep piep piep, Ich hab’ dich lieb: Rhythm as an indicator of mate quality. In BanzhafW., ChristallerT., DittrichP., KimJ.T., & ZieglerJ. (eds), Advances in Artificial Life: 7th European Conference Proceedings (ECAL 2003)425–33. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
30.
WernerG.M., & ToddP.M. (1997). Too many love songs: Sexual selection and the evolution of communication. In HusbandsP., & HarveyI. (eds), Fourth European Conference on Artificial Life, 434–43. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
31.
ZahaviA. (1975). Mate selection — a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205–14.
