Mutual Mate Choice Can Drive Costly Signaling Even Under Perfect Monogamy: Online Appendix Paul L. Hooper, Geoffrey F. Miller Appendix Table 1. Species exhibiting 2. evidence for male choosiness or female ornamen- mutual mate choice or positive tation/display in non-role-reversed species; assortment by quality-related traits. 3. evidence for female choosiness or male ornamen- tation/display in role-reversed species; or Criteria for inclusion: 4. mutual ornamentation/display plausibly related to advertising individual quality. 1. non-random mating according to traits plausibly related to individual quality; This listing extends Table 2 in the published text. Spiders, Insects, and Crustaceans Species Relevant mating pattern Source Amphipoda Gammarus pulex Size assortative mating (Arnqvist, Rowe, Krupa, & Sih, and G. aquicauda, and other 1996; Hume, Elwood, Dick, & water striders Connaghan, 2002; Thomas, Liautard, Cezilly, & Renaud, 1998) Blister beetles Lytta magister and Size assortative mating (Bonduriansky, 2001; Brown, Tegrodera aloga, the leaf beetle 1990a, 1990b, 1993) Trirhabda canadensis, Brentis anchorago Chrysomelid beetle Timarcha Assortative mating by size and (Thomas, Oget, Gente, Desmots, maritima parasite load & Renaud, 1999) East African jumping spider Mutual display and mutual size (Cross, Jackson, & Pollard, 2007) Evarcha culicivora preferences Fruit fly Drosophila mela- Male preferences for larger, more (Byrne & Rice, 2006) nogaster fecund females Fruit fly Drosophila serrata Mutual expression and preferences (Chenoweth & Blows, 2005) for cuticular hydrocarbon signal traits Correspondence to: P. L. Hooper, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, MSC01 1040, University of New Mexico, Copyright © 2008 International Society for Adaptive Behavior Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA. E-mail:
[email protected] (2008), Vol 16(1): 1–9.