The Relationship between Morphological and Behavioral Mimicry in Hover Flies (Diptera: Syrphidae)

Penney, Heather D.; Hassall, Christopher; Skevington, Jeffrey H.; Lamborn, Brent; Sherratt, Thomas N.

doi:10.1086/674612

Cited by 39 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Currently, there are two main theoretical approaches used in mimicry research. The first involves investigating how closely putative examples of mimicry comply with traditional definitions of Batesian (see Glossary) and/or M€ ullerian mimicry (reviews: Roy & Widmer 1999;Maynard-Smith & Harper 2003;Wickler 2013; empirical studies: Londoño et al 2014;Penney et al 2014;Igic et al 2015). However, these venerable definitions were developed for static visual signals, and do not always extend easily to dynamic signals that change rapidly over time, or to signals that are conveyed through non-visual modalities (Ruxton 2009;Schaefer & Ruxton 2009;Schiestl & Johnson 2013;Dalziell et al 2015).…”

Section: Current Approaches To Mimicry Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mimicry for all modalities

Dalziell

Welbergen

2016

Ecology Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mimicry is a canonical example of adaptive signal design. In principle, what constitutes mimicry is independent of the taxonomic identity of the mimic, the ecological context in which it operates, and the sensory modality through which it is expressed. However, in practice the study of mimicry is inconsistent across research fields, with theoretical and empirical advances often failing to cross taxonomic and sensory divides. We propose a novel conceptual framework whereby mimicry evolves if a receiver perceives the similarity between a mimic and a model and as a result confers a selective benefit onto the mimic. Here, misidentification and/or deception are no longer formal requirements, and mimicry can evolve irrespective of the underlying proximate mechanisms. The centrality of receiver perception in this framework enables us to formally distinguish mimicry from perceptual exploitation and integrate mimicry and multicomponent signalling theory for the first time. In addition, it resolves inconsistencies in our understanding of the role of learning in mimicry evolution, and shows that imperfect mimicry is expected to be the norm. Mimicry remains a key model for understanding signal evolution and cognition, and we recommend the adoption of a unified approach to stimulate future interdisciplinary developments in this fascinating area of research.

show abstract

Section: Current Approaches To Mimicry Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mimicry for all modalities

Dalziell

Welbergen

2016

Ecology Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The majority of the adults visit flowers to ingest pollen and nectar as source of protein and energy. Many species are excellent mimics of stinging hymenopterans, and some groups even exhibit same behavior patterns as their hymenopteran models (Penney et al 2014). In contrast, larvae can be saprophagous, phytophagous, or predators.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogeographic patterns of Merodon hoverflies in the Eastern Mediterranean region: revealing connections and barriers

Ståhls

Vujić

Petanidou

et al. 2016

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the phylogeographic patterns of Merodon species (Diptera, Syrphidae) in the Eastern Mediterranean. Ten species were sampled on five different islands and mainland sites as a minimum. All samples were screened for their mtDNA COI barcode haplotype diversity, and for some samples, we additionally generated genomic fingerprints. The recently established zoogeographic distribution categories classify these species as having (1) Balkan distribution; (2) Anatolian distribution; (3) continental areas and large islands distribution; and (4) with wide distribution. The ancestral haplotypes and their geographical localities were estimated with statistical parsimony (TCS). TCS networks identified as the ancestral haplotype samples that originated from localities situated within the distributional category of the species in question. Strong geographical haplotype structuring was detected for many Merodon species. We were particularly interested to test the relative importance of current (Aegean Sea) and past Mid‐Aegean Trench) barriers to dispersal for Merodon flies in the Aegean. We employed phylogenetic β‐diversity (Pβ total) and its partition in replacement (Pβ repl) and richness difference (Pβ rich) to test the importance of each explanatory variable (interisland distance, MAT, and island area) in interisland differences using partial Mantel tests and hierarchical partitioning of variation. β‐Analyses confirmed the importance of both current and past barriers to dispersal on the evolution of group. Current interisland distance was particularly important to explain the replacement of haplotypes, while the MAT was driving differences in richness of haplotypes, revealing the MAT as a strong past barrier whose effects are still visible today in the phylogenetic history of the clade in the Aegean. These results support the hypothesis of a highly restricted dispersal and gene flow among Merodon populations between islands since late Pleistocene. Additionally, patterns of phylogeographic structure deduced from haplotype connections and ISSR genome fingerprinting data revealed a few putative cases of human‐mediated transfers of Merodon spp.

show abstract

“…Does it arise in relatively good mimics reflecting the comparatively strong selection for mimetic perfection or in poor mimics as a means of compensation? Initial evidence in hoverflies suggests that behavioural mimics also tend to be relatively good morphological mimics (Penney et al 2014). Anecdotally, this also seems to be true for caterpillars with eyespots as the most complete case of behavioural mimicry of which we are aware occurs in caterpillars from the Hemeroplanes genus (Sphingidae).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…Similarly, mimetic animals may employ behaviours to increase their resemblance to dangerous or noxious models. Spectacular examples of this include hoverflies that hold up and wave their dark front legs in front of their head to mimic the conspicuous antennae of wasps (Waldbauer 1970;Penney et al 2014), and mimetic butterflies that fly slowly and in a straight line to mimic the nonchalant flight behaviour of their models (Srygley 1999(Srygley , 2004. Clearly behavioural mimicry can play a key role in making the discrimination task of the predator more difficult, thereby conferring greater protection to mimetic prey.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Investigation into the Ecology and Evolution of Caterpillar Eyespots

Hossie¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eyespots are conspicuous circular patterns on the body of an animal which superficially resemble vertebrate eyes. These odd markings have long captured the interest of biologists and naturalists alike, many of whom have suggested that eyespots mimic the real eyes of dangerous animals and thereby protect prey species from their attackers. Eyespots are particularly widespread and diverse in lepidopteran caterpillars, and these caterpillars with eyespots are typically assumed to be snake-mimics. Yet a dearth of empirical investigation has left us without evidence that eyespots can protect caterpillars, or the ability to substantiate our subjective belief that these caterpillars are mimicking snakes. Using a combination of field and lab experiments my research provides robust empirical evidence demonstrating that eyespots are an adaptation in caterpillars, but reveals that other factors, including body colour and body size, influence their efficacy as a deterrent. Moreover, my work reveals that the defensive posture, which many caterpillars with eyespots adopt when harassed, also provides protection independent from the possession of eyespots. Using an objective measure of mimetic fidelity I showed that this defensive posture is likely a form of behavioural mimicry which increases the caterpillar's resemblance to viperine snakes when viewed dorsally. Caterpillars from three distinct families showed analogous behavioural mimicry, suggesting strong selection for convergent phenotypes across lepidopteran larvae. Finally I provide an explanation for why some caterpillars have eyespots, and others do not. I show that body size critically influences the evolution of eyespots using a phylogenetically-controlled analysis of Macroglossinae (Sphingidae) caterpillar traits.Using field and lab experiments I reveal that the protective value of eyespots to caterpillars is in fact size-dependent: eyespots are only intimidating to attackers when on large-bodied prey that are already easy to detect, yet eyespots hinder small prey by making them easy to detect and failing to intimidate attackers. I argue that caterpillar eyespots have evolved to serve a mimetic function and were generated and are currently maintained by the innate fear of predator eyes harbored to varying degrees by numerous species of insect-eating birds.4

show abstract

The Relationship between Morphological and Behavioral Mimicry in Hover Flies (Diptera: Syrphidae)

Cited by 39 publications

References 34 publications

Mimicry for all modalities

Mimicry for all modalities

Phylogeographic patterns of Merodon hoverflies in the Eastern Mediterranean region: revealing connections and barriers

An Investigation into the Ecology and Evolution of Caterpillar Eyespots

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About