Every angle of what condition the spider could be in was covered. The only thing that the authors do not include is exactly how many spiders they used to do this experiment. They do say that is was done over a couple of months. They could have used one spider every couple of weeks. The thing that the authors Albo et al(2007) do say is that the individuals that were initially used were virgins and they were not reused. That still does not let us know how many individuals were used to do this whole experiment. The controlled group was the good condition male offering well wrapped gifts as well as the poor condition poorly wrapped gift males. Their gifts were not exchanged with other males gifts from the other groups, they were allowed to present their own gifts. I do not see how these results could be interpreted in another form. Everything points to males that are well conditions and have well wrapped gifts to do better in the mating scene and have more offspring. The poor conditioned males with poorly wrapped gifts also mate but they do not have much success in the offspring department. I agree with the authors completely, it would make sense that the females should pay closer attention to how well a gift is wrapped. If it is wrapped well and the male appears to be well condition then it should clearly indicate that they know what they are doing and …show more content…
This article is not related to the assigned one because it is mostly just talking about how a spider colony works and how the mating process can take place within the colony. It does not talk about what can influence a female’s choice in picking a male. It mostly talks about a population size and how many eggs a female had. This article in my opinion was not related to what the main article was about. It could be used to show how competitive it could be for males to mate with a female as the population of a colony increases. The information that was cited does go with the assigned article but they talk very little about the main subject from the assigned article. I do not believe that work was cited correctly. Both articles dealt with spiders but were about different subjects. I do not agree with Albo et al. interpretation of their citation. The way that it was presented looks like it belongs with their article but once you read where they got it from. It just does not make sense how they managed to present it in their