Natural selection in mimicry

Abstract

Biological mimicry has served as a salient example of natural selection for over a century, providing us with a dazzling array of very different examples across many unrelated taxa. We provide a conceptual framework that brings together apparently disparate examples of mimicry in a single model for the purpose of comparing how natural selection affects models, mimics and signal receivers across different interactions. We first analyse how model–mimic resemblance likely affects the fitness of models, mimics and receivers across diverse examples. These include classic Batesian and Müllerian butterfly systems, nectarless orchids that mimic Hymenoptera or nectar‐producing plants, caterpillars that mimic inert objects unlikely to be perceived as food, plants that mimic abiotic objects like carrion or dung and aggressive mimicry where predators mimic food items of their own prey. From this, we construct a conceptual framework of the selective forces that form the basis of all mimetic interactions. These interactions between models, mimics and receivers may follow four possible evolutionary pathways in terms of the direction of selection resulting from model–mimic resemblance. Two of these pathways correspond to the selective pressures associated with what is widely regarded as Batesian and Müllerian mimicry. The other two pathways suggest mimetic interactions underpinned by distinct selective pressures that have largely remained unrecognized. Each pathway is characterized by theoretical differences in how model–mimic resemblance influences the direction of selection acting on mimics, models and signal receivers, and the potential for consequent (co)evolutionary relationships between these three protagonists. The final part of this review describes how selective forces generated through model–mimic resemblance can be opposed by the basic ecology of interacting organisms and how those forces may affect the symmetry, strength and likelihood of (co)evolution between the three protagonists within the confines of the four broad evolutionary possibilities. We provide a clear and pragmatic visualization of selection pressures that portrays how different mimicry types may evolve. This conceptual framework provides clarity on how different selective forces acting on mimics, models and receivers are likely to interact and ultimately shape the evolutionary pathways taken by mimetic interactions, as well as the constraints inherent within these interactions.

Müllerian mimicry among bees and wasps: a review of current knowledge and future avenues of research

“…mutualistic) and classical Batesian (i.e. parasitic) mimicry (Speed & Turner, 1999;Ruxton et al, 2004;Sherratt, 2008), this review focuses on these two classical categories (Anderson & de Jager, 2020;Briolat et al, 2019). .…”

Structural anther mimics improve reproductive success through dishonest signaling that enhances both attraction and the morphological fit of pollinators with flowers

“…Mimicry, the phenomena in which an organism obtains a fitness advantage by resembling the phenotype of the another, provides some of the finest examples of natural selection (reviewed in Anderson and de Jager [2020] and Jamie [2017]). In the most common scenario where a receiver is disadvantaged by the mimic (Newman et al.…”

“…Mimicry, the phenomena in which an organism obtains a fitness advantage by resembling the phenotype of the another, provides some of the finest examples of natural selection (reviewed in Anderson and de Jager [2020] and Jamie [2017]). In the most common scenario where a receiver is disadvantaged by the mimic (Newman et al 2012;Cohen et al 2021), antagonistic interactions may result in the receiver evolving an increasing ability to discriminate dishonest signals as advertised by the mimic from the model.…”

Honesty, reliability, and information content of floral signals

“… 13 Following that definition, flower color and scent are generally best considered signals, because (i) owing to their distinct smell or color the flower is more conspicuousness to pollinators than without those colors and scent 3 , 4 ; (ii) for many species the evolution of floral color and scent is considered to be driven by selection that favors high conspicuousness to pollinators 2 , 3 , 14 , 15 ; and (iii) pollinators use color and scent to find flowers and their rewards. 16 , 17 , 18 An exception to that rule of mutual benefit are rewardless, 19 deceptive plant species, whereby the plant capitalizes on the pollinator’s preference and there clearly is no benefit for the pollinator.…”