Search results for "Batesian mimicry"
showing 10 items of 15 documents
Batesian Mimicry and Signal Accuracy
1997
RICE, W. R. 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43:223-225. RICE, W. R., AND E. E. HOSTERT. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation: what have we learned in 40 years? Evolution 47: 1637-1653. SAWADA, S. 1963. Studies on the local races of the Japanese newt, Triturus pyrrhogaster Boie. II. Sexual isolation mechanisms. J. Sci. Hiroshima Univ. Ser. B 21:167-180. SPIETH, H. T, AND J. M. RINGO. 1983. Mating behavior and sexual isolation in Drosophila. Pp 223-284 in M. Ashburner, L. M. Carson, and J. N. Thompson Jr, eds. The genetics and biology of Drosophila. Academic Press, New York. TEMPLETON, A. R. 1996. Experimental evidence for the genetictransilience model of speciati…
Selection for multicomponent mimicry: equal feature salience and variation in preferred traits
2016
When should multiple traits on Batesian mimics be selected to resemble corresponding traits on model species? Here, we explore two possibilities. First, features of equal salience to predators may be used to categorize prey, selecting for multicomponent mimicry. Second, if different predators use single yet different traits to categorize prey, multicomponent mimicry may still be selected. We studied how blue tits categorized rewarding and unrewarding artificial prey items that are differentiated by a combination of two color dimensions. Many birds used both color dimensions to make decisions, and overall, the population selected for multicomponent mimicry. However, a subset of birds used on…
Social information use about novel aposematic prey is not influenced by a predator’s previous experience with toxins
2019
Aposematism is an effective antipredator strategy. However, the initial evolution and maintenance of aposematism are paradoxical because conspicuous prey are vulnerable to attack by naive predators. Consequently, the evolution of aposematic signal mimicry is also difficult to explain. The cost of conspicuousness can be reduced if predators learn about novel aposematic prey by observing another predator's response to that same prey. On the other hand, observing positive foraging events might also inform predators about the presence of undefended mimics, accelerating predation on both mimics and their defended models. It is currently unknown, however, how personal and social information combi…
Why aren't warning signals everywhere? : On the prevalence of aposematism and mimicry in communities
2021
Warning signals are a striking example of natural selection present in almost every ecological community - from Nordic meadows to tropical rainforests, defended prey species and their mimics ward off potential predators before they attack. Yet despite the wide distribution of warning signals, they are relatively scarce as a proportion of the total prey available, and more so in some biomes than others. Classically, warning signals are thought to be governed by positive density-dependent selection, i.e. they succeed better when they are more common. Therefore, after surmounting this initial barrier to their evolution, it is puzzling that they remain uncommon on the scale of the community. He…
Evaluating the potential for evolutionary mismatch in Batesian mimics: A case study in the endangered smooth snake (Coronella austriaca)
2018
Many harmless organisms gain a survival advantage by mimicking venomous species. This is the case of the endangered smooth snake (Coronella austriaca), which mimics venomous vipers. Although this may protect the smooth snake against most of its natural predators, it may render them at greater risk of mortality from humans, who are more inclined to kill species, such as vipers, that they consider dangerous. This may cause an evolutionary mismatch, whereby humans may counteract the natural advantage of mimicry. We explore this possibility of evaluating the willingness of humans to kill smooth snakes versus the adder (Vipera berus), as well as their ability to discern them in the Åland Islands…
Imperfect Batesian mimicry—the effects of the frequency and the distastefulness of the model
1997
Batesian mimicry is the resemblance between unpalatable models and palatable mimics. The widely accepted idea is that the frequency and the unprofitability of the model are crucial for the introduction of a Batesian mimic into the prey population. However, experimental evidence is limited and furthermore, previous studies have considered mainly perfect mimicry (automimicry). We investigated imperfect Batesian mimicry by varying the frequency of an aposematic model at two levels of distastefulness. The predator encountered prey in a random order, one prey item at a time. The prey were thus presented realistically in a sequential way. Great tits (Parus major) were used as predators. This expe…
How Did the Cuckoo Get Its Polymorphic Plumage?
2012
One hundred and fifty years ago, the English naturalist Henry Walter Bates first developed the theory of mimicry ( 1 ). Based on his field observations in the Amazon, he argued that the uncanny likeness of unrelated butterflies is an evolutionary adaptation whereby edible butterflies avoid predation by imitating the coloration of venomous butterfly species without paying the cost of arming themselves. Such “Batesian mimicry” is a dynamic parasitic game between three players, in which a harmless species (the mimic) escapes predation by imitating the warning signals of harmful species (the model) that a shared predator (the dupe) has learned to avoid. On page 578 of this issue, Thorogood and …
Co-mimics have a mutualistic relationship despite unequal defences
2007
Defensive mimicry, where species have evolved to resemble others in order to evade predators, is quite common in the animal kingdom. The two extremes of the mimicry spectrum are known as 'batesian' and 'mullerian'. Batesian mimics develop signals — visual cues for instance — that are similar to those of species being mimicked, but stop short of adopting the attribute that makes it unprofitable prey to predators. Mullerian mimics both resemble the model species and share the anti-predation attribute — by being dangerous or unpalatable. These different types of mimic were identified a century ago, but the dynamics of mimicry between unequally defended prey remain unresolved. In an experiment …
Mimicry between unequally defended prey can be parasitic: evidence for quasi-Batesian mimicry
2010
The nature of signal mimicry between defended prey (known as Mullerian mimicry) is controversial. Some authors assert that it is always mutualistic and beneficial, whilst others speculate that less well defended prey may be parasitic and degrade the protection of their better defended co-mimics (quasi-Batesian mimicry). Using great tits (Parus major) as predators of artificial prey, we show that mimicry between unequally defended co-mimics is not mutualistic, and can be parasitic and quasi-Batesian. We presented a fixed abundance of a highly defended model and a moderately defended dimorphic (mimic and distinct non-mimetic) species, and varied the relative frequency of the two forms of the …
THE EFFECT OF ALTERNATIVE PREY ON THE DYNAMICS OF IMPERFECT BATESIAN AND MÜLLERIAN MIMICRIES
2004
Both Batesian and Müllerian mimicries are considered classical evidence of natural selection where predation pressure has, at times, created a striking similarity between unrelated prey species. Batesian mimicry, in which palatable mimics resemble unpalatable aposematic species, is parasitic and only beneficial to the mimics. By contrast, in classical Müllerian mimicry the cost of predators' avoidance learning is shared between similar unpalatable co-mimics, and therefore mimicry benefits all parties. Recent studies using mathematical modeling have questioned the dynamics of Müllerian mimicry, suggesting that fitness benefits should be calculated in a way similar to Batesian mimicry; that i…