Study
Ultraviolet vision and mate choice in zebra finches
Bennett, Andrew T. D.; Cuthill, Innes C.; Partridge, Julian C.; Maier, Erhard J.
Nature, 1996
Female zebra finches chose between males viewed through filters that either transmitted ultraviolet or removed it while leaving the rest of the spectrum as close to unchanged as possible. Each female was tested under both conditions and her preference recorded.
- Studied in
- Taeniopygia guttata
- Sample size
- female zebra finches choosing between males under two filter conditions
Female preferences changed when ultraviolet was removed, and the ranking of males under the two conditions did not agree.
What it means
The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.
How the authors put it
Ultraviolet reflectance is a component of the signal females assess, and excluding it changes mate choice.
How NatureHQ reads it
The study that turned avian ultraviolet vision from a physiological curiosity into an experimental problem. Before it, everyone knew birds had a fourth cone class; this showed that what it detects changes a decision. The methodological point is the lasting one and it applies to a whole literature: every plumage colour ever scored by a human observer, and every photograph ever taken of a bird, was recorded through an instrument blind to part of the signal.
- Filters that remove ultraviolet also alter brightness slightly, which is difficult to control perfectly.
- One captive species with a long history of laboratory breeding.
- Shows that removing ultraviolet changes choice; it does not identify what the females are assessing.
Taking the ultraviolet out of a bird and asking a female to choose again
Birds have a fourth cone class that responds to ultraviolet. Does what it detects change anything they do?
What this study is used for on NatureHQ
One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.
Published by: Nature PortfolioPublished in a Nature Portfolio journal.
Checked against Crossref on 2026-09-28, and they agree on the title, the authors and the year.
NatureHQ summarises research in its own words and does not reproduce published text. Reviewed 2026-09-02.