10 Don C. Forester and Richard Daniel 



(2) 14 June 1975. Male 7 was calling in an open spot between sev- 

 eral clumps of grass. He lowered the pulse rate of his call and became 

 active shortly before a female became visible. As the female approached, 

 the male began to hop in tight circles (D = 4 cm). While moving, he 

 continued to call. After 2.5 minutes, the male ceased calling and became 

 stationary. Immediately the female approached to within 1 cm of the 

 male's left side, and he quickly turned and faced her, snout to snout. 

 After a 15-second pause, the male moved behind and amplexed the 

 female. 



(3) 1 1 July 1975. Male 1 1 was calling while a female sat 3 cm away, 

 facing the opposite direction. They remained motionless for approxi- 

 mately 5 minutes. Suddenly the female began what we describe as a 

 "quiver-hop" behavior, which involved quick, nervous movement of the 

 forelimbs and elevation of the body 1 to 2 mm in a vertical position. 

 After the female had exhibited this behavior twice in rapid succession, 

 the male turned, moved quickly behind the female, and initiated 

 amplexus. 



Calling male cricket frogs formed duets, trios, quartets, and occa- 

 sionally quintets. The significance of this call synchrony to Acris gryllus 

 was not tested, but similar behavior is reported to be important during 

 mate selection by other hylids. In a study of the Pacific Treefrog, Hyla 

 regilla, females preferred the designated bout leader during call discrim- 

 ination trials involving a single male quarteting with itself (Whitney and 

 Krebs 1975). The authors concluded that bout leadership must some- 

 how imply greater fitness to a responding female. We doubt that bout 

 leadership is indicative of male fitness in A. gryllus, for two reasons: (1) 

 bout leadership often changed during the course of an evening, and (2) 

 bout leadership frequently changed from one night to the next. We sug- 

 gest, as an alternative hypothesis, that antiphonal calling may enhance 

 the fitness of the participating males by reducing broadcast interference. 

 This role has been documented for the Spring Peeper, Hyla crucifer, a 

 prolonged breeder of similar size and habits (Forester and Harrison, 

 unpubl. ms.). 



Among hylids, satellite behavior and sexual parasitism by noncall- 

 ing males has been well documented (Perrill et al. 1978, 1982). To 

 employ this behavioral strategy a noncalling male positions himself near 

 a calling male and attempts to intercept females responding to the 

 caller. Often, calling males respond agonistically to satellites as well as 

 to other conspecific males that violate their calling territory. During our 

 study, in more than 70 hours of observation, we observed neither satel- 

 lite behavior nor agonistic encounters between males. Our failure to 

 document social interactions between males is more likely a reflection of 



