Birds of Different Feathers Pair Together

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

For most animals, selecting a mate from a different species is risky business. More often than not, even if the offspring are viable, they cannot themselves reproduce, as in the classic case of mules. But findings described today in the journal Nature reveal that some birds manage to avoid the costs of hybridization. In fact, such interspecies pairing can even be the female's best bet.

Ben Sheldon of the University of Oxford and his colleagues studied hybridization between two closely related species, pied flycatchers and collared flycatchers. Though males of the two species clearly differ in their plumage and songs, female collared flycatchers often pair with male pied flycatchers¿far more often than would be expected by chance. At first glance, the mingling might seem fairly disastrous: first-generation female offspring are usually completely sterile. On closer inspection, however, the team found several mechanisms that cancel out the detrimental effects of mixing.

For one thing, if a collared female breeds late in the season, choosing a pied male can actually be advantageous because the "heterospecific" pair will produce more fledglings than a pure collared pair would, owing to interspecies differences in peak performance timing. Second, mixed-species pairs produce more males¿which suffer fewer effects from hybridization than females¿thus favoring the sturdier sex. Lastly, Sheldon's team found that in a number of cases, although collared females had formed pair bonds with pied males, collared males had actually sired the offspring. Dennis Hasselquist of Lund University suggests in a commentary accompanying the Nature report that perhaps the females cuckold the pied males because they provide better territories. (For their part, the males don't appear to be particularly discriminating. "Males have little mate choice," Hasselquist told Nature Science Update, "if they get a female, they're very happy.")


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The new results show that vertebrates may have evolved sophisticated mechanisms to balance out the negative consequence of hybridization, Hasselquist notes. "Such mechanisms might evolve rapidly in a location where two related species overlap," he writes. "Alternatively, it is possible that these mechanisms did not evolve to cope with hybridization, but rather are a side effect of existing female preferences."

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she has focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe