It is not uncommon for researchers to want to interrogate paired binomial data. For example, researchers may want to compare an organism’s response (positive or negative) to two different stimuli. If they apply both stimuli to a sample of individuals, it would be natural to present the data in a 2 × 2 table. There would be two cells with concordant results (the frequency of individuals which responded positively or negatively to both stimuli) and two cells with discordant results (the frequency of individuals who responded positively to one stimulus, but negatively to the other). The key issue is whether the totals in the two discordant cells are sufficiently different to suggest that the stimuli trigger different reactions. In terms of the null hypothesis testing paradigm, this would translate as a P value which is the probability of seeing the observed difference in these two values or a more extreme difference if the two stimuli produced an identical reaction. The statistical test designed to provide this P value is the McNemar test. Here, we seek to promote greater and better use of the McNemar test. To achieve this, we fully describe a range of circumstances within biological research where it can be effectively applied, describe the different variants of the test that exist, explain how these variants can be accessed in R, and offer guidance on which of these variants to adopt. To support our arguments, we highlight key recent methodological advances and compare these with a novel survey of current usage of the test. Significance statement When analysing paired binomial data, researchers appear to reflexively apply a chi-squared test, with the McNemar test being largely overlooked, despite it often being more appropriate. As these tests evaluate a different null hypothesis, selecting the appropriate test is essential for effective analysis. When using the McNemar test, there are four methods that can be applied. Recent advice has outlined clear guidelines on which method should be used. By conducting a survey, we provide support for these guidelines, but identify that the method chosen in publications is rarely specified or the most appropriate. Our study provides clear guidance on which method researchers should select and highlights examples of when this test should be used and how it can be implemented easily to improve future research.

Camouflage – adaptations that prevent detection and/or recognition – is a key example of evolution by natural selection, making it a primary focus in evolutionary ecology and animal behaviour. Most work has focused on camouflage as an anti‐predator adaptation. However, predators also display specific colours, patterns and behaviours that reduce visual detection or recognition to facilitate predation. To date, very little attention has been given to predatory camouflage strategies. Although many of the same principles of camouflage studied in prey translate to predators, differences between the two groups (in motility, relative size, and control over the time and place of predation attempts) may alter selection pressures for certain visual and behavioural traits. This makes many predatory camouflage techniques unique and rarely documented. Recently, new technologies have emerged that provide a greater opportunity to carry out research on natural predator–prey interactions. Here we review work on the camouflage strategies used by pursuit and ambush predators to evade detection and recognition by prey, as well as looking at how work on prey camouflage can be applied to predators in order to understand how and why specific predatory camouflage strategies may have evolved. We highlight that a shift is needed in camouflage research focus, as this field has comparatively neglected camouflage in predators, and offer suggestions for future work that would help to improve our understanding of camouflage.

No abstract

Mate choice is an important source of sexual selection and a key driver of evolutionary processes including adaptation and speciation. Drosophila species have become an important model system for studying mate choice in the lab. Mate choice experiments often require the marking of individual flies to make those flies identifiable to experimenters, and several marking methods have been developed. All of these methods have the potential to affect mating behavior, but the effects of different marking methods have not been systematically quantified and compared. In this experiment, we quantified and compared the effects of five marking methods commonly used for Drosophila melanogaster: wing clipping, applying paint to the thorax, applying marker pen to the wing, dusting flies with fluorescent powder, and dyeing flies by allowing them to ingest food coloring. Females mated with unmarked males more often than they mated with marked males, but we could not detect significant differences among marking methods. Latency to mate differed among marking methods, and also with the time of day and the time within the trial. We discuss how our results can help researchers plan studies that require the marking of Drosophila.

Terrestrial gastropods display monotaxic direct crawling. During locomotion, smooth muscle contraction stimulates a series of pedal waves that move along the ventral surface of the foot. These waves interact with a thin layer of mucus produced by the foot, propelling the animal forward. Although the mechanism by which this process occurs has been well studied, less is known about how morphological or environmental factors affect this process, and ultimately how they may alter the speed of propulsion. In this study, we tested the influences of body size, substrate type, and substrate orientation on crawling speed in the terrestrial snail Cornu aspersum. We found that substrate texture and orientation had a strong effect on speed, whereas snail body size and the presence of a conspecific trail did not. Crawling speed across rough sandpaper was the most striking, showing a clear inversely proportional relationship between the size of abrasive particle and speed. We suggest that this may be the result of substrate attributes interfering with mucus adhesion or mucus production, subsequently affecting locomotion, although gait choice or the frequency and length of each pedal wave may also play a role.