“…Recently, it has been shown that female signalling is positively associated with age and/or experience (Potti, 1993;Cuervo et al, 1996;Tella et al, 1997;Komdeur et al, 2005;Bortolotti et al, 2006;Hegyi et al, 2008b), survival prospects (Hõrak et al, 2001;Roulin & Altwegg, 2007), body size (Amundsen, Forsgren & Hansen, 1997), body condition (Velando, Lessels & Marquez, 2001;Bortolotti et al, 2006), breeding performance and/or immunocompetence (Hanssen, Folstad & Erikstad, 2006;Polo & Veiga, 2006;Potti & Merino, 1996;Morales et al, 2007;Doutrelant et al, 2008), predator avoidance (Avilés, Solís & Valencia, 2008), within-clutch variation in yolk androgens (Gil, Lacroix & Potti, 2006), egg size (Szigeti et al, 2007), offspring quality (Roulin et al, 2000(Roulin et al, , 2001bSiefferman & Hill, 2005), or nestling feeding rate (Jawor et al, 2004), all supporting the idea that female ornamentation may indicate individual quality. In addition, observational and experimental studies have reported assortative mating with respect to individual ornamentation (Roulin, 1999;Griggio et al, 2005;Bortolotti et al, 2006;Hegyi et al, 2007b, but see also Bortolotti et al, 2008) and that more ornamented females are more frequently courted (Torres & Velando, 2005), are selected as primary females in polygynous mating systems (Hegyi et al, 2007a), and obtain more and higher quality sperm from high-quality males during the mating process (Cornwallis & Birkhead, 2007a than less conspicuous females.…”