Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T09:32:56.426Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Social influences on communication signals: from honesty to exploitation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

By
Mark E. Hauber  and
Marlene Zuk
Edited by
Tamás Székely ,
Allen J. Moore  and
Jan Komdeur
Mark E. Hauber
Affiliation:
University of Auckland, New Zealand
Marlene Zuk
Affiliation:
University of California, Riverside, California, USA
Tamás Székely
Affiliation:
University of Bath
Allen J. Moore
Affiliation:
University of Exeter
Jan Komdeur
Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands
Get access

Summary

Overview

Communication is at the core of understanding sociality as an interface between behaviours and phenotypes, and their evolutionary trajectories. Central to communication research is gaining an understanding of the information content of signals and the ecological, social and physiological factors that influence their format. It is clear that individuals which benefit from social exchange can critically influence what information is transmitted, how it is transmitted and whether it is scrambled to prevent eavesdropping. Less clear is how the physical channels through which signals are emitted and received might influence the extent to which they are prone to errors, dishonesty and manipulation. Here we show how sensory systems, perceptual physiology, cognitive decision rules and evolutionary trajectories produce the broad range of signalling modalities and contents that we see in nature. Our overview suggests that experimental evidence on the meaning, honesty and selective benefits of communication for signallers and receivers across invertebrates and vertebrates can provide a taxonomically broad but conceptually similar set of examples. This is not surprising, since studies across diverse lineages have demonstrated that the mechanism and function of communication systems both critically shape social behaviour and are being shaped by sociality. In particular, functional investigations of the sensory systems of vocal communication in songbirds, visual signals in trap-building predators, and chemical signalling in arthropods, have established clear examples of the limits to perception and discrimination of signal design.

Type
Chapter
Information
Social Behaviour
Genes, Ecology and Evolution
 , pp. 185 - 199
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bradbury, J. W. & Vehrencamp, S. L. (1998) Principles of Animal Communication. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D. (1997) The Evolution of Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. & Harper, D. (2003) Animal Signals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Searcy, W. A. & Nowicki, S. (2005) The Evolution of Animal Communication: Reliability and Deception in Signaling Systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Alcock, J. (1984) Animal Behavior: an Evolutionary Perspective. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Arnqvist, G. (2006) Sensory exploitation and sexual conflict. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 361, 375–386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnqvist, G. & Rowe, L. (2005) Sexual Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, J. W. & Vehrencamp, S. L. (1998) Principles of Animal Communication. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Briskie, J. V., Naugler, C. T. & Leech, S. M. (1994) Begging intensity of nestling birds varies with sibling relatedness. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 258, 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briskie, J. V., Martin, P. R. & Martin, T.E. (1999) Nest predation and the evolution of nestling begging calls. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 266, 2153–2159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumm, H. & Slater, P. (2006) Ambient noise, motor fatigue, and serial redundancy in chaffinch song. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 60, 475–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cade, W. (1981) Alternative male strategies: genetic differences in crickets. Science, 212, 563–564.CrossRef
Campbell, D. L. M. & Hauber, M. E. (2008) Dissecting and validating the salience of recognition cues used by female zebra finches to discriminate con- and heterospecific males. In: Proceedings of the 6th Measuring Behavior Conference, Maastricht, the Netherlands, 2008, p. 332.
Campbell, D. L. M. & Hauber, M. E. (2009) Disassociation of visual and acoustic conspecific cues decreases discrimination by female zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 123, 310–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D. L. M., Weiner, S. A., Starks, P. T. B. & Hauber, M. E. (2009) Context and control: behavioural ecology experiments in the laboratory. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 46, 112–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardé, R. T. & Baker, T. C. (2004) Chemical Ecology of Insects. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, N. S. (1988) Song discrimination learning in zebra finches. Animal Behaviour, 36, 1016–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cocroft, R. B. (1999) Offspring–parent communication in a subsocial treehopper (Hemiptera: Membracidae:Umbonia crassicornis). Behaviour, 136, 1–21.Google Scholar
Cocroft, R. B., Shugart, H. J., Konrad, K. T. & Tibbs, K. (2006) Variation in plant substrates and its consequences for insect vibrational communication. Ethology, 112, 779–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, C. L., Weber, R. S. & Bernard, G. D. (1996) Evolution of predator-prey systems: spider foraging plasticity in response to the visual ecology of prey. American Naturalist, 147, 205–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dearborn, D. C. (2000) Brown-headed cowbird nestling vocalizations and the risk of nest predation. Auk, 116, 448–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dearborn, D. C. & Lichtenstein, G. (2002) Begging behaviour and host exploitation in parasitic cowbirds. In: The Evolution of Begging: Competition, Cooperation and Communication, ed. Wright, J. & Leonard, M. L.. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 361–387.Google Scholar
Crespigny, F. E. C. & Hosken, D. J. (2007) Sexual selection: signals to die for. Current Biology, 17, R853–R855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Ettorre, P., Tofilski, A., Heinze, J. & Ratnieks, F. L. W. (2002) Non-transferable signals on ant queen eggs. Naturwissenschaften, 93, 136–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elias, D. O., Hebets, E. A., Mason, A. C. & Hoy, R. R. (2005) Seismic signals are crucial for male mating success in a visual specialist jumping spider (Araneae: Salticidae). Animal Behaviour, 69, 931–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endler, J. A. & Houde, A. E. (1995) Geographic variation in female preferences for male traits in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution, 49, 456–468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fatouros, N. E., Dicke, M., Mumm, R., Meiners, T. & Hilker, M. (2008) Foraging behavior of egg parasitoids exploiting chemical information. Behavioral Ecology, 19, 677–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1958) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Forstmeier, W., Coltman, D. W. & Birkhead, T. R. (2004) Maternal effects influence the sexual behaviour of sons and daughters in the zebra finch. Evolution, 58, 2574–2583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaskett, A. C., Winnick, C. G. & Herberstein, M. E. (2008) Orchid sexual deceit provokes ejaculation. American Naturalist, 171, E206–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goth, A. & Hauber, M. E. (2004) Ecological approaches to species recognition in birds through studies of model and non-model species. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 41, 823–842.Google Scholar
Gotmark, F. & Olsson, J. (1997) Artificial colour mutation: do red-painted great tits experience increased or decreased predation?Animal Behaviour, 53, 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenfield, M. D. (2002) Signalers and Receivers: Mechanisms and Evolution of Arthropod Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grodzinski, U. & Lotem, A. (2007) The adaptive value of parental responsiveness to nestling begging. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 274, 2449–2456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grodzinski, U., Hauber, M. E. & Lotem, A. (2009) The role of feeding regularity and nestling digestive efficiency in parent–offspring communication: an experimental test. Functional Ecology, 23, 569–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gronenberg, W., Ash, L. A. & Tibbetts, E. A. (2008) Correlation between facial pattern recognition and brain composition in paper wasps. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 71, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haskell, D. (1994) Experimental evidence that nestling begging behaviour incurs a cost due to nest predation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 257, 161–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauber, M. E. (1998) Web decorations and alternative foraging tactics of the spiderArgiope appensa. Ethology, Ecology and Evolution, 10, 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauber, M. E. (2003) Lower begging responsiveness of host vs. cowbird nestlings is related to species identity but not to early social experience in parasitized broods. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117, 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauber, M. E. & Kilner, R. M. (2007) Who mimics whom? Communication, co-evolution, and chick mimicry in parasitic finches. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 61, 497–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauber, M. E. & Pilz, K. M. (2003) Yolk testosterone levels are not consistently higher in the eggs of obligate brood parasites than their hosts. American Midland Naturalist, 149, 354–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauber, M. E. & Ramsey, C. K. (2003) Honesty in host-parasite communication signals: the case for begging by fledgling brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater). Journal of Avian Biology, 34, 339–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauber, M. E. & Sherman, P. W. (2001) Self-referent phenotype matching: theoretical possibilities and empirical tests. Trends in Neurosciences, 10, 609–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauber, M. E., Sherman, P. W. & Paprika, D. (2000) Self-referent phenotype matching in a brood parasite: the armpit effect in brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater). Animal Cognition, 3, 113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauber, M. E., Russo, S. A. & Sherman, P. W. (2001) A password for species recognition in a brood parasitic bird. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 268, 1041–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, M. D. (1997) The Evolution of Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hebets, E. A. (2003) Subadult experience influences adult mate choice in an arthropod: exposed female wolf spiders prefer males of a familiar phenotype. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 100, 13390–13395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebets, E. A. (2005) Attention-altering interactions among signals in multimodal wolf spider courtship displays. Behavioral Ecology, 16, 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hebets, E. A. (2007) Subadult experience does not influence species recognition in the wolf spider Schizocosa uetzi Stratton 1997. Journal of Arachnology, 35, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, D. E. & Price, T. (1999) Sexual imprinting, learning and speciation. Heredity, 82, 347–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johansson, B. J. & Jones, T. M. (2007) The role of chemical communication in mate choice. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 82, 265–289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kam, Y.-C. & Yang, H.-W. (2002) Female–offspring communication in a Taiwanese tree frog, Chirixalus eiffingeri (Anura: Rhacophoridae). Animal Behaviour, 64, 881–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katti, M. & Warren, P. S. (2004) Tits, noise and urban bioacoustics. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19, 109–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilner, R. M. (1997) Mouth colour is a reliable signal of need in begging canary nestlings. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 264, 963–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilner, R. M. (2001) A growth cost of begging in captive canary chicks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 98, 11394–11398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilner, R. M. & Johnstone, R. A. (1997) Begging the question: are offspring solicitation behaviours signals of need?Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12, 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koivula, M. & Viitala, J. (1999) Rough-legged buzzards use vole scent marks to assess hunting areas. Journal of Avian Biology, 30, 329–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komdeur, J., Daan, S., Tinbergen, J. & Mateman, C. (1997) Extreme adaptive modification in sex ratio of the Seychelles warbler's eggs. Nature, 385, 522–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knudsen, E. l. & Konishi, M. (1979) Mechanisms of sound localization in the barn owl (Tyto alba). Journal of Comparative Physiology, 133, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, J. E. (1997) Firefly mating ecology, selection and evolution. In: The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids, ed. Choe, J. C. & Crespi, B. J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 184–192.Google Scholar
Lorenz, K. (1937) The companion in the bird's world. Auk, 54, 245–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotem, A. (1993) Learning to recognize nestlings is maladaptive for cuckoo Cuculus canorus host. Nature, 362, 743–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotem, A. (1998) Differences in begging behaviour among barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) nestlings. Animal Behaviour, 55, 809–818.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Main, A. R. & Bull, C. M. (1996) Mother–offspring recognition in two Australian lizards, Tiliqua rugosa and Egernia stokesii. Animal Behaviour, 52, 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, , and A.C., Oshinsky, M. L. & Hoy, R. R. (2001) Hyperacute directional hearing in a microscale auditory system. Nature, 410, 686–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1991) Honest signalling: the Philip Sidney game. Animal Behaviour, 42, 1034–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McRae, S. B., Weatherhead, P. J. & Montgomerie, R. (1993) American robin nestlings compete by jockeying for position. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 33, 101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mennill, D. J., Ratcliffe, L. M. & Boag, P. T. (2002) Female eavesdropping on male song contests in songbirds. Science, 296, 873.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noldus, L. P. J. J., Lenteren, J. C. & Lewis, W. J. (1991) How Trichogramma parasitoids use moth sex pheromones as kairomones: orientation behavior in a wind tunnel. Physiological Entomology, 16, 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otter, K. A., Atherton, S. E. & Oort, H. (2007) Female food solicitation calling, hunger levels and habitat differences in the black-capped chickadee. Animal Behaviour, 74, 847–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patricelli, G. L. & Blickley, J. L. (2006) Avian communication in urban noise: causes and consequences of vocal adjustment. Auk, 123, 639–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilz, K. M., Smith, H. G. & Andersson, M. (2005) Brood parasitic European starlings do not lay high-quality eggs. Behavioral Ecology, 16, 507–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platzen, D. & Magrath, R. D. (2005) Adaptive differences in response to two types of parental alarm call in altricial nestlings. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272, 1101–1106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pryke, S. R. & Griffith, S. C. (2009) Genetic incompatibility drives sex allocation and maternal investment in a polymorphic finch. Science, 323, 1605–1607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, D. & Gopfert, M. C. (2002) Antennal acoustic sensitivity in flies. Physiological Entomology, 48, 189–196.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. A., Taylor, P. W. & Uetz, G. W. (2007) Consequences of complex signaling: predator detection of multimodal cues. Behavioral Ecology, 18, 236–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rundus, A. S., Owings, D. H., Joshi, S. S., Chinn, E., Giannini, N. (2007) Ground squirrels use an infrared signal to deter rattlesnake predation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 104, 14372–14376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryan, M. J. (1985) The Túngara Frog: a Study in Sexual Selection and Communication. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sakaluk, S. K. (1990) Sexual selection and predation: balancing reproductive and survival needs. In: Insect Defenses: Adaptive Mechanisms and Strategies of Prey and Predators, ed. Evans, D.L. and Schmidt, J.O.. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp. 63–90.Google Scholar
Schwabl, H., Palacios, M. G. & Martin, T. E. (2007) Selection for rapid embryo development correlates with embryo exposure to maternal androgens among passerine birds. American Naturalist, 170, 196–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Searcy, W. A. & Nowicki, S. (2005) The Evolution of Animal Communication: Reliability and Deception in Signaling Systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sheehan, M. J. & Tibbetts, E. A. (2008) Robust long-term social memories in a paper wasp. Current Biology, 18, R851–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, P. W. (1985) Alarm calls of Belding's ground squirrels to aerial predators: nepotism or self-preservation?Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 17, 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, P. W., Reeve, H. K. & Pfennig, D. W. (1997) Recognition systems. In: Behavioural Ecology: an Evolutionary Approach, 4th edn, ed. Krebs, J. R. & Davies, N. B.. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 69–96.Google Scholar
Slabbekoorn, H. & Peet, M. (2003) Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise. Nature, 424, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabbekoorn, H. & Ripmeester, E. A. P. (2008) Birdsong and anthropogenic noise: implications and applications for conservation. Molecular Ecology, 17, 72–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smiseth, P. T. & Moore, A. J. (2007) Signalling of hunger by senior and junior larvae in asynchronous broods of a burying beetle. Animal Behaviour, 74, 699–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smiseth, P. T., Lennox, L. & Moore, A. J. (2007) Interaction between parental care and sibling competition: parents enhance offspring growth and exacerbate sibling competition. Evolution, 61, 2331–2339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, H. G. & Montgomerie, R. (1991) Nestling American robins compete with siblings by begging. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 29, 307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowers, L., Holy, T., Meister, M., Dulac, C. & Koetnges, G. (2002) Loss of sex discrimination and male-male aggression in mice deficient in TRP2. Science, 295, 1493–1500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Symonds, M. R. E. & Elgar, M. A. (2004) The mode of pheromone evolution: evidence from bark beetles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 271, 839–846.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Symonds, M. R. E. & Elgar, M. A. (2008) The evolution of pheromone diversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23, 220–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ten Cate, C., Vos, D. R. & Mann, N. (1993) Sexual imprinting and song learning: two of one kind?Netherlands Journal of Zoology, 43, 34–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ten Cate, C., Verzijden, M. N. & Etman, E. (2006) Sexual imprinting can induce sexual preferences for exaggerated parental traits. Current Biology, 16, 1128–1132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tibbetts, E. A. (2004) Complex social behavior can select for variable visual features: a case study in Polistes wasps. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 271, 1955–1960.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tibbetts, E. A. & Dale, J. (2004) A socially enforced signal of quality in paper wasp. Nature, 432, 218–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tibbetts, E. A. & Dale, J. (2007) Individual recognition: it is good to be different. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 22, 529–537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tibbetts, E. A., Sheehan, M. J. & Dale, J. (2008) A testable definition of individual recognition. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23, 356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonra, C. M., Hauber, M. E., Heath, S. K. & Johnson, M. D. (2008) Ecological correlates and sex differences in early development of a generalist brood parasite. Auk, 125, 205–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, R. H. (2006) Signal detection and animal communication. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 36, 217–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. R. & Hare, J. F. (2004) Ground squirrel uses ultrasonic alarms. Nature, 430, 523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Windmill, J. F. C., Jackson, J. C., Tuck, E. J. & Robert, D. (2006) Keeping up with bats: dynamic auditory tuning in a moth. Current Biology, 16, 2418–2423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, W. E. & Yezerinac, S. M. (2006) Song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) song varies with urban noise. Auk, 123, 650–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, W. A., Hendrickson, H., Mason, J. & Lewis, S. M. (2007) Energy and predation costs of firefly courtship signals. American Naturalist, 170, 702–708.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woolley, S. M. N., Wissman, A. M. & Rubel, E. W. (2001) Hair cell regeneration and recovery of auditory thresholds following aminoglycoside ototoxicity in Bengalese finches. Hearing Research, 153, 181–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, J. & Leonard, M. L., eds. (2002) The Evolution of Begging: Competition, Cooperation and Communication. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanette, L., MacDougall-Shackleton, E., Clinchy, M. & Smith, J. N. M. (2005) Brown-headed cowbirds skew host offspring sex ratios. Ecology, 86, 815–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuk, M. & Kolluru, G. R. (1998) Exploitation of sexual signals by predators and parasitoids. Quarterly Review of Biology, 73, 415–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuk, M., Simmons, L. W. & Cupp, L. (1993) Calling characteristics of parasitized and unparasitized populations of the field cricketTeleogryllus oceanicus. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 33, 339–343.Google Scholar
Zuk, M., Rotenberry, J. T. & Tinghitella, R. M. (2006) Silent night: adaptive disappearance of a sexual signal in a parasitized population of field crickets. Biology Letters, 2, 521–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×