| Female CHC Category | Courtship Success Odds Ratio (95% CI) | Courtship Time Hazard Ratio (95% CI) |
---|

Conspecific Pairs |

Male Species: GF | ML v. Not ML | 0.781 (0.337, 1.673) | 1.176 (0.858, 1.613) |

Male Species: GP | ML v. Not ML | 0.957 (0.496, 1.846) | 0.910 (0.645, 1.283) |

Heterospecific Pairs |

Male Species: GF | ML v. Not ML | 2.583 (1.314, 5.079) | 1.610 (1.166, 2.222) |

Male Species: GP | ML v. Not ML | 1.165 (0.604, 2.247) | 1.039 (0.731, 1.478) |

Random Intercepts | Binomial Logistic Mixed Effects Estimated SD | Cox Proportional Hazard Mixed Effects Estimated SD |

Male ID | 1.435 | 0.714 |

- Binomial logistic mixed effects regression analysis of courtship success odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals and the estimated standard deviations of random intercepts are reported for males. Cox proportional hazard mixed effects hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals and the estimated standard deviations of random intercepts for males. Hazard ratios are interpreted as the relative courtship rate at a time t of one group as compared to another. For example, at any point in the trial,
*G. firmus* males are 1.610 more likely to start courting with a heterospecific females with a male-like (ML) CHC profile then females with any other CHC profile